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

To Whom it May Concern in this Thread...

Just curious, but the OP ain't asking whether fundamentalists are a numerous or proportionally large religious group, so why are y'all assuming their numbers and influence is what really counts the most here? Are you going to tell me now you want to spend your whole life savoring the missionary position and nothing beyond the missionary position just because it's the most popular position? Because it seems to me that maybe a bigger issue here is that fundamentalism 24/7 is about as exciting as your sock drawers on a Friday night.

Terry Sampson said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Baha'i Faith is Made up of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians - They one and all now embrace what Abdul'Baha wrote in that Bible and each others scriptures.

They now agree that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the Ones they have awaited for in all their scriptures.

Terry, it is all up to you and your choices and I will always wish you well and happy.

Regards Tony

Sunstone said:

To Whom it May Concern in this Thread...

Just curious, but the OP ain't asking whether fundamentalists are a numerous or proportionally large religious group, so why are y'all assuming their numbers and influence is what really counts the most here? Are you going to tell me now you want to spend your whole life savoring the missionary position and nothing beyond the missionary position just because it's the most popular position? Because it seems to me that maybe a bigger issue here is that fundamentalism 24/7 is about as exciting as your sock drawers on a Friday night.

Click to expand...

I see that fundamentalism condenses what we can explore. It is like standing in a room that has all the pieces in the right place. I see it stops us walking outside and admiring the structure and beauty of all creation and how erratic that can be.

So much in this life to explore and Faith should not restrict that, but order is needed, we have to find that fundamental balance.

Regards Tony

@firedragon
@Pastek
@paarsurrey
@Link

Tony Bristow-Stagg tells me, in his post #52, "The Baha'i Faith is Made up of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians - ... They now agree that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the Ones they have awaited for in all their scriptures."[/QUOTE]

It is my firm conviction that his first sentence is missing the important word "former" and should read: "The Baha'i Faith is Made up of former Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians ...". I certainly can't imagine an orthodox Christian or a traditional Jew becoming a Baha'i believer.

I'm just wondering: based on your familiarity with the Qur'an and Islam, would you be inclined to agree that a devout Muslim would NOT be inclined to become a Baha'i believer?

No many Muslims would leave it and become Bahai if they become aware of Bahai texts....

I read the texts, I was interested, but then realized in kitabal iqan it verified Du'a Nudba which has a mentioned in it "there is no Prophet after me" - quoting Mohammad.

That turned me off and over time I realized their is a vast difference between Quran and their holy writing, no comparison. That, and the door -> to manifestation of the Mahdi -> to Prophethood is a language game that is stupid and God would never do this to humans, play sophistry gone haywire.

But a lot of people are not as aware of the majestic nature of Quran and can easily be impressed by Bahai scripture and think well of it... so many Muslims may convert to Bahaism.

Misguidance takes many form, guidance one. That's reality.

So Bahaism can have it's share of Muslims being misguided to it, it's not impossible or improbable.

Link said:

so many Muslims may convert to Bahaism.

Click to expand...

Link said:

So Bahaism can have it's share of Muslims being misguided to it, it's not impossible or improbable.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your useful input. I now remember my own days of "ambiguity". So, yes, it is possible for a person to be a naive believer in one of the major religions, find Baha'i attractive, and gravitate to it.

Sunstone said:

To Whom it May Concern in this Thread...

Just curious, but the OP ain't asking whether fundamentalists are a numerous or proportionally large religious group, so why are y'all assuming their numbers and influence is what really counts the most here? Are you going to tell me now you want to spend your whole life savoring the missionary position and nothing beyond the missionary position just because it's the most popular position? Because it seems to me that maybe a bigger issue here is that fundamentalism 24/7 is about as exciting as your sock drawers on a Friday night.

Click to expand...

Heh... if fundamentalism is the missionary position, then what's talking about whether we should talk about the missionary position?

I guess in that analogy, this thread would be the equivalent of a review of blogs about sock drawers.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Heh... if fundamentalism is the missionary position, then what's talking about whether we should talk about the missionary position?

Click to expand...

Your analogy is imprecise and misleading, my friend. I am not at all saying drop all talk of fundamentalism. I am questioning whether the Forum in the opinion of its members is too much oriented towards fundamentalism. Do you see the difference?

I guess in that analogy, this thread would be the equivalent of a review of blogs about sock drawers.

Click to expand...

As is my very personality, too!

Terry Sampson said:

@firedragon
@Pastek
@paarsurrey
@Link

Tony Bristow-Stagg tells me, in his post #52, "The Baha'i Faith is Made up of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians - ... They now agree that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the Ones they have awaited for in all their scriptures."

Click to expand...

It is my firm conviction that his first sentence is missing the important word "former" and should read: "The Baha'i Faith is Made up of former Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians ...". I certainly can't imagine an orthodox Christian or a traditional Jew becoming a Baha'i believer.

I'm just wondering: based on your familiarity with the Qur'an and Islam, would you be inclined to agree that a devout Muslim would NOT be inclined to become a Baha'i believer?[/QUOTE]

Any religious group big enough to claim significant numbers in terms of millions and billions are all comprised of "ex-Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and of course Bahai's".

Terry Sampson said:

Thanks for your useful input. I now remember my own days of "ambiguity". So, yes, it is possible for a person to be a naive believer in one of the major religions, find Baha'i attractive, and gravitate to it.

Click to expand...

The attractive thing about it is uses a lot Irfan/sufism in it's texts, but it's that gone haywire as well, which to some it would make unattractive!

Sunstone said:

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?

Click to expand...

Isn't that to be expected?
In the end, it's primarily fundamentalism that clashes with "overall" society. It's fundamentalists that actively try to get their nonsense legislated and stuffed down the throats of "unbelievers" (quotes, because they consider "moderates" also as unbelievers).

I note that in such discussions, usually it's really not fundamentalists versus atheists.
It usually rather is fundamentalists of flavour X, against everyone else. Including "moderates" of flavour X.

I mean, there's even an entire subforum titled "evolution vs creationism".
You might as well call that "science vs irrational fundamentalism", because it's the same thing.

Any thread involving discussions on evolution, will have a moderate side (those who accept demonstrated 21st century science) and a fundamentalist side (those who believe bronze age mythology trump 21st century science).

Hockeycowboy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not only that. That person would have to accept a version of evolution on exponential steroids. It would have to accept evolution that goes faster by a factor of THOUSANDS then what is detailed in the actual theory of evolution.

To the point that one would have to believe that for the past 4000 years, 16 new species would have had to evolve every day. In reality, speciation events take thousands upon thousands of years to occur. Sometimes even millions.

So the "evolution" such people would necessarily have to accept, really isn't the "evolution" process that is explained in the field of biology. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of flood believers are also anti-evolutionist creationists and you enter a weird world where they won't accept all the evidence for a slow evolutionary process, but somehow they are required to believe in a ridiculously fast evolutionary process - for which no evidence at all exists.

It makes zero sense and it is a prime example of how such believers need to be extremely selective in what they'll accept and ignore and that they have to do that based on their a priori beliefs instead of by what the evidence actually suggest.

It's an extreme case of drawing the bullseye around the arrow, while completely ignoring every that doesn't fit that picture.

Fundamentalism in a nutshell.

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?

Click to expand...

And it ignores all the facts of how this story is physically, geologically, navally, biologically and chemically impossible.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Heh... if fundamentalism is the missionary position, then what's talking about whether we should talk about the missionary position?

I guess in that analogy, this thread would be the equivalent of a review of blogs about sock drawers.

Click to expand...

I don't like this analogy. I think atheism would logically equate to abstinence...

You know, it could be worth discussing in some other thread what fundamentalism is, how it relates to the mainstream of religiosity, and what trends and roles we may perceive.

Fundamentalism to me is the literal acceptance of religious doctrines as accurate reality.

Rf is obsessive about targeting such groups of people.

I think people fear the resurgence of fundamentalism.

On the flip side modernity is extremely pretentious about establishing truth for everybody. Things like evolutionary psychology I find to be very hollow in terms of explaining being and motivation.