Is RF as a Forum Focused too Narrowly on Fundamentalist Ideas and Notions?

[MikeDwight]

Welp, as soon as I get enough people to march Selma to Mongomery in Confederate uniform, backwards, I'll let you know OP. MLK's body lies a'smolderin in the grave. The Cross he tried to take as a frothy knave. Hawkeye a man of no Cross, the noblest ******* over you, our Cross goes marchin' on.

 

[crossfire]

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.

Mysticism is really more suited to discussion rather than debate. The necessary uncertainty of mysticism can be downright scary to those who prefer things to be cut and dried.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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?

That website is over a decade old and the numbers have been steadily falling since then. I'm also not just talking about the US (*music for You're so vain begins* **don't mean you personally, but America tends to be self focused when discussing global religions.), which is rare in the West to have Christian fundamentalists demographic that large. When considering global populations, and the rate at which fundamentalism is declining it really is a small minority and vanishingly so.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

Honestly, I think all of us notice what threatens us most. I tend to notice atheism (and maybe Islam) far more prevalent than fundamentalist Christians, which I haven't noticed at all because it seems limited to Christian majority threads.

Or maybe it's just that Christian fundamentalism doesn't actually bother me anymoe, short of being in a scary church. I see reality as a mirror, and each of us decide who our allies are, who our rivals are, and who our opponents are. You're just seeing that as more common, cuz you'd rather see less of it.

As a sort of proof of this, I used to be left-leaning for years (green party and usually a nonvoter). Got upset from a Baptist church doing a "marriage and family" sermon. Then gradually I realized the left doesn't really help the minorities it panders to and I defected to the right. Figured out all of a sudden that the left who had no really bothered me before was now obnoxiously trying to politically sway me ( and my being basically Log Cabin conservative meant I got slurs thrown at me directly from the left), while I came to terms with hardcore churches.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

Can I respond with a joke?
A moderate, reasonable Christian, a moderate reasonable atheist, and a moderate reasonable {insert other religion here} went to a bar to discuss their differing views.

They quickly moved on to discuss other things, like movies, books, sports.

After that, they went home.

Now I'll admit, it's not a very funny joke, but nor is it very effective clickbait. Whereas if they were fundies who ended up in a bar fight? Plenty of people attracted to that.

 

[Audie]

Welp, as soon as I get enough people to march Selma to Mongomery in Confederate uniform, backwards, I'll let you know OP. MLK's body lies a'smolderin in the grave. The Cross he tried to take as a frothy knave. Hawkeye a man of no Cross, the noblest ******* over you, our Cross goes marchin' on.

The word is "moldering"

 

[Audie]

That website is over a decade old and the numbers have been steadily falling since then. I'm also not just talking about the US (*music for You're so vain begins* **don't mean you personally, but America tends to be self focused when discussing global religions.), which is rare in the West to have Christian fundamentalists demographic that large. When considering global populations, and the rate at which fundamentalism is declining it really is a small minority and vanishingly so.

That

That website is over a decade old and the numbers have been steadily falling since then. I'm also not just talking about the US (*music for You're so vain begins* **don't mean you personally, but America tends to be self focused when discussing global religions.), which is rare in the West to have Christian fundamentalists demographic that large. When considering global populations, and the rate at which fundamentalism is declining it really is a small minority and vanishingly so.

If the topic is "worldwide", maybe.

In the USA, "vanishingly small " is wishful thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That website is over a decade old and the numbers have been steadily falling since then.

A few posts back, I posted the more recent figure: 24% of Americans take the Bible as literally true. Still a large percentage.

I'm also not just talking about the US (*music for You're so vain begins* **don't mean you personally, but America tends to be self focused when discussing global religions.), which is rare in the West to have Christian fundamentalists demographic that large. When considering global populations, and the rate at which fundamentalism is declining it really is a small minority and vanishingly so.

I'm not an American either, but I do realize that an English language internet forum is going to be largely dominated by Americans.

But worldwide, there are fundamentalists of all religious stripes.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A few posts back, I posted the more recent figure: 24% of Americans take the Bible as literally true. Still a large percentage.


I'm not an American either, but I do realize that an English language internet forum is going to be largely dominated by Americans.

But worldwide, there are fundamentalists of all religious stripes.

Less than a quarter in the US, and smaller world wide, is given so much attention that you'd think it were the majority. That's part of the problem. 'Bible literalism' should not be the first thing that springs to mind when discussing Christianity, but it's all some atheists do here.

 

[Terry Sampson]

an example of a religious concept that is “more sophisticated” than fundamentalist ideas?

A "more sophisticated" religious concept that comes to my mind is "righteous".

 

[MikeDwight]

I used to think "fundamental" means "standard" which means the international "baseline", then, Somehow, we exported the woman's pantsuit PM Angela Merkel Lutheran's alliance and whatever, so, the international is like where'd , let's see, some portion of this choosing to move with the eternal unchanging textual scripture of God and all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?

I would say I agree, but you may have to correct my thought by giving an example of what you see as, "sophisticated expressions of human religiosity."

My thought would be to ask what value can be found in 'sophisticated expressions of human religiosity'?

I may answer that question myself, by considering that a fundamental religious thought is that all Good is from God, thus we could look for that good in any sophisticated expressions of human religiosity and also consider what is not good.

Regards Tony

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Sunstone

'Bible literalism' should not be the first thing that springs to mind when discussing Christianity, but it's all some atheists do here.

Unsolicited random thoughts:

I recently came across the terms "Participatory Revelation" and "Stenographic Revelation" in Benjamin D. Sommers' book "Revelation and Authority". As Sommers defines those terms:

• Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation.
• In the chart below, I sketched out a range of scripture "types" from a "What is this" point of view to a "This is Fundamentalist Scripture" point of view.
  • The blank line, IMO, can be filled in with any of the numbered Scriptures.
• AGigitalArtist's statement, quoted above, accurately (I believe) identifies the "typical" atheist approach to Christian Scriptures. The problem with the typical atheist approach is that the Scriptures are written documents that can't talk. Christians do the talking for them. And, as RF threads have proven, Christians themselves range from "Clueless" to "Fundamentalist". [And that doesn't include the whack-jobs who have invented their own version of Christianity.]
  • re: Sunstone's OP question. Personally, I don't think "RFas a Forum is focused too narrowly on Fundamentalist ideas and notions. However, I do think some folks here in RF need to figure out how to spread their love around.
• Muslims, far more consistently than any other religion (IMO) view the Qur'an as a stenographic revelation. I won't even pretend to know how the Baha'i, Buddhists, and Hindu view their own Scriptures. Variations among Jews are more numerous than among the Muslims and the Bahai, but fewer, I speculate, than among the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@Sunstone


Unsolicited random thoughts:

I recently came across the terms "Participatory Revelation" and "Stenographic Revelation" in Benjamin D. Sommers' book "Revelation and Authority". As Sommers defines those terms:

• Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation.
• In the chart below, I sketched out a range of scripture "types" from a "What is this" point of view to a "This is Fundamentalist Scripture" point of view.
  • The blank line, IMO, can be filled in with any of the numbered Scriptures.
• AGigitalArtist's statement, quoted above, accurately (I believe) identifies the "typical" atheist approach to Christian Scriptures. The problem with the typical atheist approach is that the Scriptures are written documents that can't talk. Christians do the talking for them. And, as RF threads have proven, Christians themselves range from "Clueless" to "Fundamentalist". [And that doesn't include the whack-jobs who have invented their own version of Christianity.]
  • re: Sunstone's OP question. Personally, I don't think "RFas a Forum is focused too narrowly on Fundamentalist ideas and notions. However, I do think some folks here in RF need to figure out how to spread their love around.
• Muslims, far more consistently than any other religion (IMO) view the Qur'an as a stenographic revelation. I won't even pretend to know how the Baha'i, Buddhists, and Hindu view their own Scriptures. Variations among Jews are more numerous than among the Muslims and the Bahai, but fewer, I speculate, than among the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

View attachment 33430

Not sure how that ties back to fundamentalist views. First one must define what is "stenographic revelation"?

From what I see, the first genuine use of what may be called stenographic revelation may be the Bab and Baha'u'llah. I see they recorded many of their own works with their own pens and placed seals upon them. They also dictated to others who record the words and checked those works.

The Quran was more like the later.

As for the Bible. The older the records are, the less likely it can be shown who wrote the scriptures down and when.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Less than a quarter in the US, and smaller world wide, is given so much attention that you'd think it were the majority.

24% of Americans, but only ~74% of Americans are Christians, so the percentage of literalist Christians in the US is about 33%. Not a majority, but definitely a significant amount.

And also consider that there are Christians who may not necessarily believe in Biblical literalism personally, but belong to churches that proclaim it. Literalist denominations also have disproportionate influence on politics and government.

That's part of the problem. 'Bible literalism' should not be the first thing that springs to mind when discussing Christianity, but it's all some atheists do here.

Say an atheist from an English-speaking country (since this is an English language forum) has been wronged in some way by Christians and comes here to vent; how likely is it that they'll be venting about something other than Evangelical Protestantism?

I'd say that the only English-speaking country where it's more likely that something other than Evangelical Protestantism is the flavour of Christianity that has made the atheist in question miserable is Ireland. Pretty much anywhere else in the English-speaking world, it's the Evangelicals who do the lion's share of imposing religion on people who don't want it.

(Edit: though Evangelicals also do a fair bit of imposing their religion in Ireland, too, just not quite as much as the Catholic Church)

 

[Terry Sampson]

Not sure how that ties back to fundamentalist views.

Fundamentalists, in Christianity, tend more often than not to hold a stenographic and change-averse view of revelation.

First one must define what is "stenographic revelation"?

Technically, a stenographic revelation would be one in which the divine words in a revelation are taken down in shorthand or recorded and transcribed, word for word, producing a complete, perfectly accurate written record of the divine revelation. Obviously, nobody knew shorthand or had a tape recorder during the time periods that the Torah was given to Moses, that the Christian scriptures were written, or the Angel Gabriel recited the words of the Qur'an to Mohammad. A "stenographic revelation" means, then, that the final written product, i.e. the scripture, is exact record of the divine revelation: in other words, the scriptures are claimed to be inerrant. Do Muslims claim that the Qur'an is a perfect record of the Angel Gabriel's words to Mohammad?

Yes, if the Qur'an is written in Arabic. Is the Arabic Qur'an a stenographic revelation? As far as I know, it is. I know of no Muslim who says otherwise. Do you?

From what I see, the first genuine use of what may be called stenographic revelation may be the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

I would agree IF the Bab and Baha'u'llah claimed to have accurately written words given them by God or a non-human agent speaking on behalf and by the command of God.

As for the Bible. The older the records are, the less likely it can be shown who wrote the scriptures down and when.

That is your opinion, which may be shared among those who agree with you. However, as disappointing as it must be to you and them, the fact is that there are Jews who would disagree with you regarding the Torah and there are Christians who would disagree with you regarding the Christian scriptures. Consequently, hell will freeze over before you can persuade your debate/conversation partners otherwise who believe that their scripture is a stenographic revelation. And the only thing you accomplish by telling such believers that their claim is a statement of faith but not a statement of fact is that you annoy the bejeezus out of them. So, if you enjoy annoying such believers, by all means, knock yourself out.

Personally, my own view of the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures is they are a result of participator revelations, i.e.

the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority.

Likewise, I hold a similar view of the canonical Christian Scriptures.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Fundamentalists, in Christianity, tend more often than not to hold a stenographic and change-averse view of revelation.



Technically, a stenographic revelation would be one in which the divine words in a revelation are taken down in shorthand or recorded and transcribed, word for word, producing a complete, perfectly accurate written record of the divine revelation. Obviously, nobody knew shorthand or had a tape recorder during the time periods that the Torah was given to Moses, that the Christian scriptures were written, or the Angel Gabriel recited the words of the Qur'an to Mohammad. A "stenographic revelation" means, then, that the final written product, i.e. the scripture, is exact record of the divine revelation: in other words, the scriptures are claimed to be inerrant. Do Muslims claim that the Qur'an is a perfect record of the Angel Gabriel's words to Mohammad?

Yes, if the Qur'an is written in Arabic. Is the Arabic Qur'an a stenographic revelation? As far as I know, it is. I know of no Muslim who says otherwise. Do you?



I would agree IF the Bab and Baha'u'llah claimed to have accurately written words given them by God or a non-human agent speaking on behalf and by the command of God.



That is your opinion, which may be shared among those who agree with you. However, as disappointing as it must be to you and them, the fact is that there are Jews who would disagree with you regarding the Torah and there are Christians who would disagree with you regarding the Christian scriptures. Consequently, hell will freeze over before you can persuade your debate/conversation partners otherwise who believe that their scripture is a stenographic revelation. And the only thing you accomplish by telling such believers that their claim is a statement of faith but not a statement of fact is that you annoy the bejeezus out of them. So, if you enjoy annoying such believers, by all means, knock yourself out.

Personally, my own view of the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures is they are a result of participator revelations, i.e.

Likewise, I hold a similar view of the canonical Christian Scriptures.

Thus did we come to a conclusion as to what is stenographic revelation? Is it as you suggest how a believer chooses to see it?

Not sure where the hell freezes over observations came from, as this is my view of the Bible as recorded by Abdul'baha in the City Temple Church Bible in London;

Inscription in the Old Bible Written by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Persian;

"THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Abbás.

Regards Tony

 

[Firemorphic]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

I don't think so. At least in my experience here it has quite a considerable amount of atheists and general "skeptics" to even out the playing field enough. It's quite refreshing to be honest, coming out of my interactions with fundamentalist evangelicals (who couldn't be any further from myself as a person, spiritually and otherwise) elsewhere over the past few weeks.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Thus did we come to a conclusion as to what is stenographic revelation? I

I have; you apparently are still not certain what a stenographic revelation is.
I received the terms "participatory revelation" and "stenographic revelation" from a Conservative Jewish academic who uses them in his book: "Revelation and Authority". I find those terms useful when reflecting on Divine Revelations and sorting believer's claims and/or opinions regarding the scripture, if any, that serves them as their authority for what they believe and governs what they believe is true.

Is it as you suggest how a believer chooses to see it?

"Participatory Revelation" and "Stenographic Revelation" are labels for two ways of viewing scripture. If I believe that my Scripture is the product of Stenographic Revelation, I'm going to believe that I have no choice in deciding how to view my Scripture. I am obliged to view it as the inerrant, complete word of God. If I believe that my Scripture is the product of Participatory Revelation, then "yes" how any believer chooses to view their Scripture is their choice.

Not sure where the hell freezes over observations came from,

It doesn't matter. We're not going to change each other's minds about a lot of things each of us believes. In other words, there are irreconcilable differences between much of what you believe and much of what I believe.

this is my view of the Bible as recorded by Abdul'baha

Whoopty-do. So what?
A pastor of a Non-conformist church in London, Reverend R.J. Campbell, lets the oldest son of Baha'u'llha write an inscription in the church's Bible in the early 1920s, and I should be impressed that Abdul'baha wrote what he wrote? Go and ask a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or an atheist if they agree with Abdul's words: Is the Bible that is used by Christians "the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel, the mystery of the Kingdom and its light, the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God"? I'll be impressed when Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus agree on something.

 

[LuisDantas]

Less than a quarter in the US, and smaller world wide, is given so much attention that you'd think it were the majority. That's part of the problem. 'Bible literalism' should not be the first thing that springs to mind when discussing Christianity, but it's all some atheists do here.

I am not sure that there is much of a viable alternative, though.

Fundamentalists may not be representative of Christianity, but who is?