Whilst no doubt moderate live and let live religionists are in the majority in this world, it is the confrontational extremists who make the most noise and do the most damage. I will always challenge their POV, for which they have no evidence to support their unpleasant take on their faith.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is RF as a Forum Focused too Narrowly on Fundamentalist Ideas and Notions?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Sorry tho I should partake in more deep philosophical discussions, the idea the Zionist are about to cause WW3 with Iran sort of consumes my thinking first; with how we can deal with the religious fundamentalists.
In my opinion.
I know that @Sunstone answered this already, but if I may pitch in... fundamentalism tends to focus on claims, while more developed expressions of religiosity tend to have more time to acknowledge specific details of practical reality, allow themselves to be informed by unexpected circunstances, and have some form of well developed mechanisms for course correction and expansion of their own understanding and goals.
At its most cliched, fundamentalism manifests as the frequent use of short phrases with a high incidence of recurring, unelaborated catchwords treated with a reverence that may easily appear superstitious from the outside. Appeals to some form of authority are also common, as are models of faith that seem to amount to little more than adhering to a "faction" of sorts and declaring it to be correct.
By contrast, alternative, arguably more effective models of religiosity tend to be somewhat less predictable and more varied in their expression. Core concepts are rediscovered, questioned and contrasted with other ideas (often from outside their own doctrine) fairly often. Certainty is not particularly valued, and some sort of peace of mind with the realization that there is a myriad of religious understandings is achieved.
Apocolypse
Member
The particular notion that distinguishes fundamentalists is that the bible is literally true and inerrant.
A more nuanced view might be, "That the bible is written by different humans at different times and places having differing moral outlooks and theologies and pursuing different agendas, and should be read always bearing this in mind."
Audie
Veteran Member
It is a whole lot more than a vanishingly small or any other sort of minority.
Most Americans take Bible stories literally
The vanishingly small if existent group are atheidts so dim witted
as to think all christians are fundys. Why even bring them up?
Last edited:
Augustus
…
This says 'only' 30% think you should take it literally:
In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally
Audie
Veteran Member
Well I wont indulge in dueling
websites, but point out that 30% is not
a vanishingly small number.
Kinda sorta. I don't think it's a matter of RF focusing on fundamentalist religion; it's more that moderate universalists aren't going to be as compelled to try to change people's minds online.
Also, fundamentalists punch above their weight in terms of impact on others, and that drives discussion.
Someone who feels the need to vent about how their mostly-fundamentalist government has banned same-sex marriage, abortion, or teaching evolution probably isn't going to feel the same need to vent when a diverse, religiously moderate government passes sensible laws that don't impose on people more than necessary.
Moderate views are less controversial, in most every domain. Not much to discuss.
But I'd like to know what beliefs - for a given religion - qualify as "fundamentalist"? In the case of Islam, my take is that anyone who wants Sharia to be the law is a "fundamentalist". While I'm not the first or only person to use that definition, it might not be widely agreed with. So in Christianity - for example - what's an example of a belief that be characterized as being "fundamentalist"?
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I think that the primary concern of today for most people who would care to participate in this forum is the demonstration of the validity of a fundamentalist viewpoint or its invalidity. This because of the significant political weight that such a distinction carries for so many, many people.
My own belief is that literalism is a great enemy of our society as it is trying to shield people who are fearful of change from coming to terms with their fellow human beings.
Audie
Veteran Member
Literal genesis
Right, thanks. So to refine my earlier question, for any given religion there is a continuum of beliefs. For the sake of discussion we could say that there is a 1-10 scale where 1 = extremely fundamentalist and 10 = extremely liberal. So "literal genesis" might be a 2. I guess my question is, where on the scale of 1-10 does fundamentalism start? 2? 3? 4? And what beliefs are right on the boundary between fundamentalist and not-fundamentalist?
I can say that there is a definite current of negativity towards those who use analogy and metaphor in order to express nuanced concepts in fewer words.
I'd say I would. It seems like most of the threads about Christianity are from either 1: agnostics/atheists who have a bone to pick with Christianity for whatever reason and would rather tear apart Christianity rather than try to understand how different kinds of Christians think and approach different issues, or 2: more fundamentalist/lone wolf types who think that the vast majority of mainstream Christian beliefs (and all religious beliefs that aren't theirs) are wrong and abominable and similarly spend most of if not all their time on these threads trying to disprove somebody else's religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Honestly, it's the reason I mostly avoid the religious side of Religious Forums these days, and have been doing so for the past couple years. If I see someone asking a question and seeking to understand how other people think, I feel fine to pitch in and share information. But it just seems like a good chunk of the most active people on here are out to set the trap for a perfect "gotcha" moment, whether against Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews or anyone else. Plenty of people are willing to talk, but not willing to listen.
If you're not doing plaid shirts, tasteful hoodies and thermal henleys for your fall wardrobe, you're doing it wrong.
By that measure, about a quarter of Americans are a solid 1 or 2 on your fundamentalism scale:
Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God
Depending on where you draw the line between "fundamentalist" and "not," I wouldn't be surprised if half of Americans qualify as fundamentalists.
... so maybe it's not surprising at all that we get fundamentalists here. Maybe the better question is why we have so few.
I think there may be a perception among many religious moderates that their views are more representative of their religion's mainstream than they really are, and they don't realize just how large the fundamentalist faction within their religion is.
If I may state a fact, please.
If one takes the Noah’s Ark story as truth, by necessity that person would accept that evolution occurs, at least within the Family taxon.
Y
know, accepting that story as literal, requires one to posit that God did much more than what the account reveals, i.e., protecting the plant life that was submerged under those waters, etc. But it also moves a rational person to realize that the Ark, having finite space, could not contain every species of animal that exists today.
Do you follow me?
Question: you likened the RCC accepting the ToE as religiosity accepting a "far more sophisticated expression" revealing God's plan.
You don't think that criticism of the ToE is "ridiculously present" here?
I must try harder.
Good question. Perhaps an example of relatively sophisticate religiosity that would be easier for most of us to understand as an example of relatively sophisticated religiosity would be a thread or two on Christian mysticism. Or -- for that matter -- any form of mysticism. Seems such threads are rare, and that I am almost the only long term member who starts them.
Of course, I tend to post them in the mysticism DIR because when I have posted them in less restricted forums, they have attracted dumb comments like ants to a picnic.
Good point, Audie. But there are at least
two related questions here. One is a simple
matter of demographics -- what is the largest
market for a religion forum? The other
question is a bit more difficult to answer --
what is the market that the Forum owner
wishes to target?
To give you an idea of the complexity
involved in answering the second question,
consider that RF could be marketed to a more
niche market simply by re-branding the Forum.
I am no expert in marketing, but I know enough
I could probably implement a crude but
somewhat effective re-branding that would
make the Forum more attractive to certain
people than to other people -- assuming our
owner wanted me to do that. HOWEVER, that
could easily be business suicide unless it
were combined with an advertising program, etc.
So you see how targeting the Forum to
appeal to a new group might get a bit complicated.