What we are learning from the Kevin-Don-Mike Forum

I find this interesting. Not sure what it says about Don when he writes this way, but I would like to know how he qualifies someone as "not worth dealing with." And perhaps he could tell us why he personally is "worth dealing with."

I have nothing else to say about this whole thing, but the whole oxygen thing has me LAUGHING OUT LOUD!

And for what it's worth, when you need to resuscitate a newborn, don't use 100 percent oxygen; room air is now the recommended standard.

and I never knew that you spell cumbaya with a 'c.' I always thought it was a 'k.'

also, I sometimes frozen chosen can be a good thing; i mean, . . . here they practice the "holy kiss" still, and . . . well, wow, is about all I will say about that.

watch out.

Joel (and anyone else of course)

Useful and serious taxonomies are never self-serving or self-reflective and are formed, normally, when the best interests and most serious interests are in mind, with great attention to distinctions and the effort given to distinguish between kinds, species and so on.

But let me more precisely state why I believe this taxonomy is not only unfit but dangerous and contrary to serious consideration of others, even those who have erred so greatly as the late Jack Hyles. Then those reading can decide.

1. The fact that a very notable Fundamentalist, Kevin Bauder, cannot, by the taxonomy's author, be classified demonstrates the taxonomy's flawed premise and consequentially its construct.

2. The design of a taxonomy which has, in effect, a trash-bin, a dumping ground or a disqualifying heap which vilifies those consigned to its category (A+) belies earnestness and benefit for its users.

3. That dumping ground, then, becomes not a useful too for identifying but a weapon to denigrate and minimize others which, again, reasonably calls into question its earnestness and dignity as an intellectually honest tool for classification.

4. The overall use of either demonizing, unflattering, imprecise where precision is needed or unwarranted generalizations along with descriptions which best serve the author and lessen others, thus inconsiderate language, disables those exposed to such a taxonomy to be highly considerate and instead, encourages them to to thoughtless lump many necessary distinctions together, which, by unwarranted association, erodes the essential and integral distinctions between persons.

Ex: (demonizing) "Nazi-like" in type A+. To believe on must use this kind of language  to describe a category of Fundamentalist would, by default, remove someone from being a genuine Fundamentalist. It might be some have been what is described as Nazi-like and claimed to be a Fundamentalist, but again, by default, that would remove them. A serious taxonomist would do two things in this case:

A. First, such immodest but ineffective and worst obviously demonizing language would be eschewed if one is to be taken seriously.

B. If a kind are that far removed from Fundamentalism that they need to be described as Nazi-like (not my choice of words of course), then they are another category all together. That is, they simply do not fit.

Ex: (Imprecise) in Type A. "being fundamentalist means I separate from pretty much everyone except fundamentalist who practice separation as I do" This cannot be more vague and fluid and ultimately of any use. Separate like you do? It assumes people are to center their thinking around you on this matter, a rather impossible task if not very self-centered.

Ex: (Unflattering, imprecise and unwarranted generalization ) in Type A. "Most type A's are suspicious of a plurality of elders". Suspicious? Really? Have you considered they simply disagree but more importantly how can you know that "most" are suspicious? You cannot not. Assigning this disposition to those who might separate on your scale is based on speculation at best and needlessly injurious with an implied indictment.

Ex: Type B (unflattering, imprecise over-generalization) "We view militant, conservative evangelicals as historic fundamentalist (even though they don't like the term) and so we will have some settings were we can enjoy these brothers." This implies and assumes that type A's do not have settings where they can enjoy "these" brothers'. Again, an unwarranted generalization but worse, an untruth. I have witnessed what you described as Type A's enjoying "these" brothers, just not in settings identical to those of your liking.

This taxonomy, in my view, is of no effective value with regard to useful implementation as goes Fundamentalists, but more cornering is that it is ultimately injurious to others. I must say, as well, that it is somewhat revealing when a taxonomy is produced with overly simplistic distinctions which use unflattering and condemnatory language and then observe its author use it in weaponry fashion against others.

I do believe a simple taxonomy can be produced with very limited use but with regard to how this one is being used and certain with its construct in view, I find it untenable. It reminds me of the grievous and flawed linear myth that there are two schools of theology, Calvinism and Arminianism and everyone is somewhere in between.

My hope is that a more charitable, more objective and certainly less weapon oriented taxonomy would be produced and employed with the constant acknowledgment of its real and certain limitations if one this unrefined is going to be made. Of course these are my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

I didn't mean to de-rail the thread from discussing the important, larger conversation on fundamentalism. Thanks for the taxonomy!