What Happened To All The Christians!?

[WinePusher]

Seems to me like the Christian Apologist demographic is shrinking. Many old time users, (which I realize from looking through the older threads) such as Achilles, Jester, ST_JB, scottlittlefield, olivasijo, Goose, otseng, etc......don't participate as much; while there are alot of veteran atheist/nonbeliever/agnostic users that still do.

Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

[otseng]

I'm still here.

[WinePusher]

I'm still here.

But wheres everyone else? I was reading some of Achilles and Goose's posts and they seemed very capable and knowledgable.

[otseng]

I was reading some of Achilles and Goose's posts and they seemed very capable and knowledgable.

Yes, they are very good debaters.

[Slopeshoulder]

I'm here.

[EduChris]

...Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

I can only speak from my perspective, but as a fairly recent participant here, it seemed to me that every time I posted, I was immediately pounced upon by numerous aggressive atheists. It also seemed that few other Christians stepped in to help respond to the numerous questions. In other words, the forum seemed like a hostile place at first. I wonder if some Christians aren't just turned off by their initial experience here. Also, I think a lot of Christians (correctly) understand that one can never argue someone into the faith. Still, for me, I try to give the best answers I can, knowing that my words may fall on ears that are deaf now, but which might become open later (and maybe some people will even remember some of the responses I made).

[WinePusher]

Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

I can only speak from my perspective, but as a fairly recent participant here, it seemed to me that every time I posted, I was immediately pounced upon by numerous aggressive atheists.

I think you captured the situation quite perfectly. There seem to be a fair amount of liberal christians, but the demographic of christians willing to defend God's existence and christian doctrine in threads is shrinking.

It also seemed that few other Christians stepped in to help respond to the numerous questions. In other words, the forum seemed like a hostile place at first. I wonder if some Christians aren't just turned off by their initial experience here. Also, I think a lot of Christians (correctly) understand that one can never argue someone into the faith. Still, for me, I try to give the best answers I can, knowing that my words may fall on ears that are deaf now, but which might become open later (and maybe some people will even remember some of the responses I made).

Very Good Post! I am rarely backed up by other christians in threads and usually its me responding to two or three non believers. Also, as another question in general, does anybody think this forum is getting to be a little anti fundamentalist?
There is an anti fundamentalist user group, and fundamentalist christians are often looked down upon. Maybe thats why new christians only participate for a little while and then disapper?

[otseng]

Also, as another question in general, does anybody think this forum is getting to be a little anti fundamentalist? There is an anti fundamentalist user group, and fundamentalist christians are often looked down upon. Maybe thats why new christians only participate for a little while and then disapper?

It depends. I think when most non-theists refer to Fundamentalists, they are using the Dawkins definition - "religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence". With this definition, I also look down on these type of people. But, if one means a Bible literalist (24 hour days of creation, global flood, miracles, bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc), then I would classify myself as a Fundamentalist.

[EduChris]

...a Bible literalist (24 hour days of creation, global flood, miracles, bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc)...

I don't disbelieve any of these things, but when interpreting scripture I try not to rely on the historicity of (some parts of) the Old Testament. It's not that I think these things couldn't have happened, but rather that I'm not sure if the genre itself is intended to be historical fact. In the case of the New Testament, the genre of the material does seem to be intended as historical

As an example from the OT, the book of Jonah says the same thing to me whether it is actual history, or whether it is a parable. I don't have to decide whether or not a fish actually swallowed a prophet named Jonah, because I'm unsure whether the original writer intended the story to be historical or parabolic--and because the historicity (or non-historicity) doesn't affect my interpretation either way.

As for labels, liberals usually think I'm a fundamentalist, whereas conservatives often think I'm a liberal. These are just labels, and you sort of get used to taking them with a grain of salt.

When I use the term "fundamentalist," I am referring to anyone--whether Christian or atheist or Muslim or whatever--who will not even try to understand the other person's point of view. So far it seems to me that the atheists have more fundamentalists in their ranks than do the Christians.

[Slopeshoulder]

To me, fundamentalism, biblicism, etc. are terms for an anti-modern strain in religion, and they are distinctly modern phenomena.

I don't think fundamentalism is accurately understood as a style of belief with belligerence as its hallmark; that's a convenient deflection. A person like that is a belligerant fundamentalist, as opposed to a civil one, as Otseng has well pointed out and honestly admitted.

Rather it is a set of beliefs. The most salient issue is whether or not one takes modernity seriously. By this I do NOT mean that the logical positivists and scientific reductionists get to set terms. What I do mean has to do with whether or not one takes the mainstream intellectual current (and theological current) of the last 600 years (starting with Descartes but picking up steam with the 18th Enlightenment and afterward) seriously, soberly recognizing its honesty, power, and neutrality. And how can we not? Modernity determines the entire thought world we inhabit. Is scripture an exception? Why would that be? I think it's emotion and identity supported by circularity in reasoning. If one does take modernity seriously, in every other aspect of life, than honesty requires us to say that a reasonable preponderance of evidence suggests that most ancient biblical tales are not literally true; rather they are "merely" normatively meaningful. They may even be from God.

If we do take modernity seriously, we don't have to give up religion. But we do have to give up anything that breaks commensensical laws of physics and basic evidence and credulity, all (well, almost all) magical thinking, supra-mundane claims, superstition, magical events, miracles, literalism, and all circular pseudo-self-validating claims to christian biblical exceptionalism pertaining to such things. But in their place we put symbolism, meaning, metaphor, poetry, hunches, inclinations, unknowing, and a thoroughgoing dialogue between theology and the other arts and sciences, with all its nealry countless insights and blessings, while most of us remain humble listeners and students.
The great theologians have been doing this for 600 years (and really earlier; none of the greats were fundamentalists per se, the term had no meaning).

If I am right, then we have four choices:
1. ditch modernity (the fundamentalist choice)
2. ditch religion (the secular modern choice)
3. get everyone thinking religiously in terms of metaphors and unknowing and evolve to a modern faith (the liberal elite dream)
4. have a "three-tiered" system of religion, in which simple folk and kids are given a literalist version (close to fundamentalist), but adults and smart folk are encouraged to develop a mature and informed faith (inclining toward and informed by modern and postmodern thought forms acorss every discipline). And at the top, a class of highly educated pastors and scholars whose wisdom and interpretations are deferred to more often than not (like doctors, these are "doctors of the church"). I'd be in that group, natch.

My opinion: I like option 4.
Option 1 is unworkable if one is serious. Option 2 is reductionistic. Option 3 is a nice dream, but not everyone has the brains, time, or maturity to embrace it; so it is elitist and leaves out many many good people. Option 4 is cool. That's what we used to have, and I think it is what liberal mainstreamers and most catholics have going on (even if the RC's appear to have gone more fundy, doctrinally, in their public pronouncements under the last two popes, the broader catholic elite is closer to what I am describing).

This then defines a modern faith: neither capitulating nor obstructing modernity. It takes a little more work, but I must say that after 30 years of trying to understand, i cannot understand how one could NOT take modernity seriously. Unless one's personal emotions and aesthetic sensibilities overcome 600 years of credible thinking (plus all the early Greek stuff that was "lost" for years and then borrowed by christians from muslims in the high middle ages). To me that is a intellectual, theological and moral failure. What I will NEVER EVER EVER understand is how college educated and seemingly reasonable people, including some of ya'll, will set aside modernity when it comes to religion.

I actively dis-believe all magic, I also dismiss all propositional truth claims about the ineffable, as a religious duty and as a manifestation of the stage of faith I find myself in. I do this to free up what religion and the bible might actually be trying to tell us. And it won't fit in the box labelled fundamentalism.