Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This seems to be a category that never gets mentioned on the R/S forums very often. Yet, I think they may represent the largest single group compared to others.
I think we may often think of them as "fundamentalists". In a way, maybe they are. But personally, I don't think fundamentalists are really the ones who are the most offensive to the non-religious. I think it's the highly dogmatic ones, which I'm not sure there is even a label for. But this is getting off track...
Anyway, I think there are a lot of moderate believers. They believe the traditional religious doctrines, but they aren't going around preaching it. They have more of a "live and let live" attitude. CS Lewis and Soren Kierkegaard might fall into this category.
What do you think? Why do we never mention them? Or if we do, what label do we give this very large group?
This seems to be a category that never gets mentioned on the R/S forums very often. Yet, I think they may represent the largest single group compared to others.
I think we may often think of them as "fundamentalists". In a way, maybe they are. But personally, I don't think fundamentalists are really the ones who are the most offensive to the non-religious. I think it's the highly dogmatic ones, which I'm not sure there is even a label for. But this is getting off track...
Anyway, I think there are a lot of moderate believers. They believe the traditional religious doctrines, but they aren't going around preaching it. They have more of a "live and let live" attitude. CS Lewis and Soren Kierkegaard might fall into this category.
What do you think? Why do we never mention them? Or if we do, what label do we give this very large group?
I think what sometimes lack is the actual assence of this forum - which perhaps is to better understand each other’s perspective on theology in a civil and scholarly discussion.
IMO, Criticism sometimes leads to mud-sledging and encourages radicalization in all camps where we start stereotyping the opponent groups.
What's there to mention? You either believe, or you don't. Anything in between is hypocrisy.
There's saying in the East - you can yell baklava all you want to, does not make it taste sweet in your mouth.
You can claim being believer of any "grade", does not make one out of you. You either are, or you are not.
Besides, who's to judge this anyway? That's strictly between object of faith and subject of that faith.
I think what sometimes lack is the actual assence of this forum - which perhaps is to better understand each other’s perspective on theology in a civil and scholarly discussion.
IMO, Criticism sometimes leads to mud-sledging and encourages radicalization in all camps where we start stereotyping the opponent groups.
Discussing perspectives and theology is best put in the christian theology. What is more appropriate to This Forum is as Ukrkoz says, whether you believe or not and why. That we make efforts to understand. Unfortunately we often understand it so well that it leaves the faithful little to do but mud -slinging.
This seems to be a category that never gets mentioned on the R/S forums very often. Yet, I think they may represent the largest single group compared to others.
I think we may often think of them as "fundamentalists". In a way, maybe they are. But personally, I don't think fundamentalists are really the ones who are the most offensive to the non-religious. I think it's the highly dogmatic ones, which I'm not sure there is even a label for. But this is getting off track...
Anyway, I think there are a lot of moderate believers. They believe the traditional religious doctrines, but they aren't going around preaching it. They have more of a "live and let live" attitude. CS Lewis and Soren Kierkegaard might fall into this category.
What do you think? Why do we never mention them? Or if we do, what label do we give this very large group?
Take it from me, one man's "liberal" is another man's "moderate," one man's "moderate" is another man's "fundamentalist," and vice-versa. I think your categories are somewhat confused. The category of most dogmatic would typically include all species of fundamentalists and evangelicals.
Like it or not, the Great Commission is part and parcel of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and all varieties of Protestantism. Those who "aren't going around preaching" the gospel aren't fulfilling the Great Commission. Those who are fulfilling the Great Commission don't really care whether they are "offensive to the non-religious." Only the most watered-down, ineffectual versions of Christianity make being inoffensive to the non-religious a goal. (We all of course try not to be so offensive that the gospel message is lost in the process.)
I'm kind of befuddled at your mention of C. S. Lewis and Kierkegaard. Gentlemanly C. S. Lewis was a proselytizer of the first magnitude. Kierkegaard was an existentialist philosopher/theologian whose primary complaint was the free and easy version of Christianity that predominated as the state religion in 19th Century Denmark. I'm not understanding how either of these would fit your notion of moderate. If C. S. Lewis were on these forums he'd be hated, while Kierkegaard would be completely unintelligible to the average participant.
I really don't think that what you're calling moderate are those who "believe the traditional religious doctrines." I think they are those who essentially don't believe the traditional religious doctrines and promote a weak, warm and fuzzy, ineffectual version of Christianity that is indeed inoffensive to the non-religious. But feel free to correct me or clarify what you mean by moderate.
Take it from me, one man's "liberal" is another man's "moderate," one man's "moderate" is another man's "fundamentalist," and vice-versa. I think your categories are somewhat confused. The category of most dogmatic would typically include all species of fundamentalists and evangelicals.
Like it or not, the Great Commission is part and parcel of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and all varieties of Protestantism. Those who "aren't going around preaching" the gospel aren't fulfilling the Great Commission. Those who are fulfilling the Great Commission don't really care whether they are "offensive to the non-religious." Only the most watered-down, ineffectual versions of Christianity make being inoffensive to the non-religious a goal. (We all of course try not to be so offensive that the gospel message is lost in the process.)
I'm kind of befuddled at your mention of C. S. Lewis and Kierkegaard. Gentlemanly C. S. Lewis was a proselytizer of the first magnitude. Kierkegaard was an existentialist philosopher/theologian whose primary complaint was the free and easy version of Christianity that predominated as the state religion in 19th Century Denmark. I'm not understanding how either of these would fit your notion of moderate. If C. S. Lewis were on these forums he'd be hated, while Kierkegaard would be completely unintelligible to the average participant.
I really don't think that what you're calling moderate are those who "believe the traditional religious doctrines." I think they are those who essentially don't believe the traditional religious doctrines and promote a weak, warm and fuzzy, ineffectual version of Christianity that is indeed inoffensive to the non-religious. But feel free to correct me or clarify what you mean by moderate.
That might be a better description than mine. In any event, I think that represents the majority group.
Discussing perspectives and theology is best put in the christian theology. What is more appropriate to This Forum is as Ukrkoz says, whether you believe or not and why. That we make efforts to understand. Unfortunately we often understand it so well that it leaves the faithful little to do but mud -slinging.
The same could apply to Islam and Judaism. There are moderates in all religions. I just used the Christian examples.
Plus, this is a subject more likely to discussed by the non-religious.
What's there to mention? You either believe, or you don't. Anything in between is hypocrisy.
Everyone believes something - your imperial declaration that there are only two legitimate beliefs is utter nonsense. Sounds to me like you're trying to defend a perspective that can only be defended in a nonsensically black-and-white world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Besides, who's to judge this anyway?
Indeed.
For many, religious doctrine helps shape their beliefs but does not define it. Often, people have reached that point by way of realizing the inherent contradictions within the religious doctrine itself, or the contradictions between any one religious doctrine and broader conceptions of morality. In other cases, people haven't done the work necessary to be able to academically defend their determination in a formal debate, but still instinctively understand the inadequacy of religious doctrine regardless.
As you dig deeper and deeper into these issues, you come to realize that the corruption typically emanates from the extremes (those for whom the statement "You either believe, or you don't" actually applies), and the true attributes of religion - love for others rather than just people like you, aspiration to improve society overall, compassion for those most vulnerable in society regardless of what they believe, and most of all, respect - emanate mostly from the middle.
Everyone believes something - your imperial declaration that there are only two legitimate beliefs is utter nonsense. Sounds to me like you're trying to defend a perspective that can only be defended in a nonsensically black-and-white world.
Indeed.
For many, religious doctrine helps shape their beliefs but does not define it. Often, people have reached that point by way of realizing the inherent contradictions within the religious doctrine itself, or the contradictions between any one religious doctrine and broader conceptions of morality. In other cases, people haven't done the work necessary to be able to academically defend their determination in a formal debate, but still instinctively understand the inadequacy of religious doctrine regardless.
As you dig deeper and deeper into these issues, you come to realize that the corruption typically emanates from the extremes (those for whom the statement "You either believe, or you don't" actually applies), and the true attributes of religion - love for others rather than just people like you, aspiration to improve society overall, compassion for those most vulnerable in society regardless of what they believe, and most of all, respect - emanate mostly from the middle.
There's some pretty good thoughts and insights there. It think it puts Q's rather than comes up with A's but the thing with this is 'It's not simple - it's complex'. So you deal with each point in turn and put the results together. The problem is not in doing that but getting the 'results' accepted by those with a faith -based resistance to results that they don't like.
Well, you can tell that by their projecting of this tendency onto atheism. It's almost an Axiom - Reverse the accusations of a believer, and you can bet it tells you exactly how they are thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The same could apply to Islam and Judaism. There are moderates in all religions. I just used the Christian examples.
Plus, this is a subject more likely to discussed by the non-religious.
It does. But in fact we never got Islam or Judaism in R/S very much and hardly ever in A/A. We got Christians arguing with us all the time. But we have Won the ground. Atheism pretty much owns R/S (religion and Secularism ) and the main peeve is that we get few Christians to play with and even less that last two rounds.
What's there to mention? You either believe, or you don't. Anything in between is hypocrisy.
There's saying in the East - you can yell baklava all you want to, does not make it taste sweet in your mouth.
You can claim being believer of any "grade", does not make one out of you. You either are, or you are not.
Besides, who's to judge this anyway? That's strictly between object of faith and subject of that faith.
The first Christmas Eve I attended at the parish to which I belong, the priest said, "It is hard to believe. It is hard not to believe." It is one of the things that made me continue to attend there.
It wasn't hypocrisy. For some of us, it is honesty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and the main peeve is that we get few Christians to play with and even less that last two rounds. 
by the way.
