|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Challenging Fellow Christians
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
It ain't about winning or losing RW. It's about respecting one another's beliefs and learning from each other.
There is too much arrogance from both sides claiming of having the Truth™ and that others are deluded or believing fairy tales (works for any set of religious beliefs or even atheism, the point is to make it known you think that those who believe in XYZ are unthinking idiots) We all lose when we engage in such tactics as any truth is then lost for both sides to gain from.
[ 25. June 2011, 13:56: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you mean 'realist' as the same thing as 'literalist'? I personally don't believe in some of the literal assertions of scripture, partly because I understand some of them were not intended to be perceived that way, and partly for other reasons. But the reality behind such assertions is very 'real' indeed.
No. Going back to the discworld analogy, a "non-literalist" reading would say that there is, somewhere, a flat circular world which rides on the back of giant elephants standing on a great big turtle that flies through space - although there might be a bit of distortion, inaccuracy, even metaphor and poetic license, in how Terry, Prophet of the Great God Om, has described it. Maybe there aren't literally four (or was it five?) elephants - maybe it's four or five groups of elephants - or maybe they aren't really elephants, just creatures that look like elephants, only much, much bigger.
A non-realist reading would say that discworld doesn't exist, except as a fictional place in the imaginations of authors and readers.
quote:
As many Christians would identify themselves with the saving grace of Christ rather than the goodness of their own works, the phrase 'a Christian in the best, purest and most natural sense of the word' probably seems a bit redundant. Though there are certainly 'good' and 'bad' Christians in terms of personal behaviour.
Yes, I understand the Christian position well, and I think it is, besides the trinity, one of the gravest errors of traditional christianity. I reject the whole Christian economy of salvation: we should be concentrating on the goodness of our works, rather than trusting in a bizarre ritual of filideicide.
Perhaps I should, to avoid confusion, be clearer in my terminology. "Christian" is an overused and confusing word, and reliance upon it might be one of the reasons that I struggle to make myself understood. When I say 'a Christian in the best, purest and most natural sense of the word', I really mean "one who lives virtuously, in accordance with humane and graceful ethics", not "one who is 'saved' by belief in the atoning effect of the death and resurrection of Jesus". In other words, we must divide the word "Christian" into two: "Trinitarian Creedalists" - those who believe in the doctrines of the Christian religion has it has been developed in the last 2 millenia - and "Jesusians" - those who are committed to an ethical way of life inspired by the the man Jesus.
quote:
For me, the touchstone of any claim to faith or life-philosophy is: does it make someone a better human being? If I can regard a person's, or my own, life as - at least - attempting to be less ego-centric, more expressive of productive virtues, then imo God's Spirit is at work. If, otoh, a believer (in whatever they believe in) regresses in this process, the Spirit is being stifled.
I agree. (I'd not necessarily use those terms - although I might, metaphorically - but, in general terms, I agree.)
For me, ceasing to be a Trinitarian Creedalist and becoming a Jesusian was an important step in that process.
quote:
I'm a little puzzled by your personal experience of morality and ethics. I find the opposite, that being a Christian very much constrains my freedom to suit myself and seek my own satisfaction over the good of others. But given the statement in the para above, that would be entirely consistent with my view of exercising my own belief in Christ.
What can I say? "Your mileage may vary"?
What I don't understand, is why would you want to use your freedom to "suit yourself" - surely, the purpose of freedom is to "love and serve one another", and what we actually seek is to develop the virtue to do that more consistently and effectively. Seeking to constrain freedom, in that sense, is to look in the wrong direction; we should be seeking to promote excellence - that's a message I can find both in Jesus & Aristotle.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'd say stop trying to win.
<...> your need to convert others bothers me.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It ain't about winning or losing RW. It's about respecting one another's beliefs and learning from each other.
Ok. Right. Deep breath.
By "win" I do not mean "convince you that my positions are correct".
I mean, "get into a position where we can escape from Christian (Trinitarian Creedalist) arrogance and can, at least, have a frank discussion on broadly equal terms". Problem is, every time I try to level out the playing field a little, Christians cry foul. They are so used to having it their own way.
That doesn't mean we have to "respect" each other's beliefs - only that all the respect should not be titled to the Christian side. I'm content with "equal scepticism" - apply the same level of criticism all beliefs, without any special pleading or scared cows.
Why should I respect your religion, which I think is false?
Why should you respect my religion, which you think is false?
That's not honest.
Let's not pretend to "respect" each other's beliefs; (incidentally, there is much in Christianity that I do happen to respect, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the rest of it too).
Let's just try to plainly and frankly.
As far as converting people is concerned, I do want to convert people, but no more so than most Christians and other religionists want to convert people too.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Let's just try to plainly and frankly.
I always do - but perhaps you haven't noticed.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why should I respect your religion, which I think is false?
Why should you respect my religion, which you think is false?
Because we're smart enough to realise that our thinking capacity is limited. And nice enough to acknowledge that the person with a different view might have had thoughts of their own.
[ 25. June 2011, 14:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Problem is, every time I try to level out the playing field a little, Christians cry foul. They are so used to having it their own way.
No. Problem is, you try to level out the playing field with a bulldozer. Try a different toolset.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why should I respect your religion, which I think is false?
Why should you respect my religion, which you think is false?
Because we're smart enough to realise that our thinking capacity is limited. And nice enough to acknowledge that the person with a different view might have had thoughts of their own.
Ok. Our thinking capacity is limited: none of us can claim to know everything, and the certainty with which we know what we do know is variable.
But would you respect the beliefs of someone who came up to you and said, "I'm the reincarnation of Napoleon and Julius Caesar, and I'm visiting earth from the planet Invisiblius - an invisible planet between earth and mars. If you don't want to be chewed up by the great sky dragon of Ikta, give me all your money!"?
What about if they said, "I believe that Odin and Thor are alive"?
Or what if they said, "I'm a muslim"?
Would you, on the basis of the fact they you are being nice and don't know everything, accord an equal respect to each of those three positions?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. Problem is, you try to level out the playing field with a bulldozer. Try a different toolset.
I fear that a bulldozer might not be strong enough; but dynamite is prohibited.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Why should I respect your religion, which I think is false?
Why should you respect my religion, which you think is false?
That's not honest.
Fair enough
But, why would you want to continue discussing religion? What good will come of it?
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
As far as converting people is concerned, I do want to convert people, but no more so than most Christians and other religionists want to convert people too.
Wouldn't you want to take an approach that didn't annoy even the religionists likely to agree with you?
I understand you'll say that Christians do the same thing. Which is true. But, are those the Christians who are the most successful at winning converts? I've never met a person converted by a street preacher.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, ceasing to be a Trinitarian Creedalist and becoming a Jesusian was an important step in that process.
Some of us believe that if you are not a Jesusian then you are not really a Trinitarian Creedalist.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
RadicalWhig: quote:
Ok. Right. Deep breath.
By "win" I do not mean "convince you that my positions are correct".
I mean, "get into a position where we can escape from Christian (Trinitarian Creedalist) arrogance and can, at least, have a frank discussion on broadly equal terms". Problem is, every time I try to level out the playing field a little, Christians cry foul. They are so used to having it their own way.
That doesn't mean we have to "respect" each other's beliefs - only that all the respect should not be titled to the Christian side. I'm content with "equal scepticism" - apply the same level of criticism all beliefs, without any special pleading or scared cows.
I can totally respect the explanation of your ideas in your post of 06-25-2011 07:07 AM (PDT). I may not agree with all of them, but I can respect both you and the integrity of your thoughts. I don't respect this pronouncement: quote:
Christianity really is insane, and those who REALLY, ACTUALLY, believe that stuff must either have a screw loose, or be intellectually lazy, or timid, or just generally fail to understand that it's NOT REAL, FOLKS! Now, you might disagree with this, but that's only because you are locked in a delusional fantasy.
See the difference? Is that what you call "leveling the playing field"- wielding a verbal machete?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
RadicalWhig: quote:
Ok. Right. Deep breath.
By "win" I do not mean "convince you that my positions are correct".
I mean, "get into a position where we can escape from Christian (Trinitarian Creedalist) arrogance and can, at least, have a frank discussion on broadly equal terms". Problem is, every time I try to level out the playing field a little, Christians cry foul. They are so used to having it their own way.
That doesn't mean we have to "respect" each other's beliefs - only that all the respect should not be titled to the Christian side. I'm content with "equal scepticism" - apply the same level of criticism all beliefs, without any special pleading or scared cows.
I can totally respect the explanation of your ideas in your post of 06-25-2011 07:07 AM (PDT). I may not agree with all of them, but I can respect both you and the integrity of your thoughts. I don't respect this pronouncement: quote:
Christianity really is insane, and those who REALLY, ACTUALLY, believe that stuff must either have a screw loose, or be intellectually lazy, or timid, or just generally fail to understand that it's NOT REAL, FOLKS! Now, you might disagree with this, but that's only because you are locked in a delusional fantasy.
See the difference? Is that what you call "leveling the playing field"- wielding a verbal machete?
Lyda*Rose just demonstrated the difference of respect in the equation quite well.
I do respect the opinions and beliefs of others I may not agree with if they are expressed with respect. I learned a long time ago that when I set aside my impulse to run roughshod over the expression of those beliefs with "but you're wrong"! and just listened, I actually learned some things. On the other hand when someone tells me "your beliefs are insane", any and all respect goes out the window and I stop listening. I'm sure there were a lot of people who quit listening to me back when I used to do just that.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But, why would you want to continue discussing religion? What good will come of it?
Religion is important. It is also fascinating. I'm also too closely moulded by it to ignore it.
Besides, just because I don't believe that discworld is real (and wouldn't respect the opinion of those who do think it is real), I'm still a discworld fan.
It's not my fault I found out that almost all the other discworld fans think that discworld is real, and that non-discworld-reality-accepting discworld fans are not invited to discworld fan conventions.
(Although, to be fair, I am finding discussions about religion less and less fruitful, they keep on coming back to the same subject, and going around and around in circles.)
quote:
quote:
originally posted by RadicalWhig:
As far as converting people is concerned, I do want to convert people, but no more so than most Christians and other religionists want to convert people too.
Wouldn't you want to take an approach that didn't annoy even the religionists likely to agree with you?
I understand you'll say that Christians do the same thing. Which is true. But, are those the Christians who are the most successful at winning converts? I've never met a person converted by a street preacher.
Good point.
I don't know how to talk to religionists in a way that is (a) honest, frank and direct AND (b) doesn't just annoy them. Supernatural believers seem to be allergic to honestly, frankness and directness when it comes to challenging their beleifs.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Christianity really is insane, and those who REALLY, ACTUALLY, believe that stuff must either have a screw loose, or be intellectually lazy, or timid, or just generally fail to understand that it's NOT REAL, FOLKS! Now, you might disagree with this, but that's only because you are locked in a delusional fantasy.
See the difference? Is that what you call "leveling the playing field"- wielding a verbal machete?
I don't see that is wrong with that statement. I think it is true - and quite measured. You might disagree, and say that it is not true. Fine. What's the problem with that? We can discuss these disagreements. But if I get accused of "wielding a verbal machete" just for speaking the truth as I see it, then there is no level playing field at all.
Do you see?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But would you respect the beliefs of someone who came up to you and said, "I'm the reincarnation of Napoleon and Julius Caesar, and I'm visiting earth from the planet Invisiblius - an invisible planet between earth and mars. If you don't want to be chewed up by the great sky dragon of Ikta, give me all your money!"?
What about if they said, "I believe that Odin and Thor are alive"?
Or what if they said, "I'm a muslim"?
Would you, on the basis of the fact they you are being nice and don't know everything, accord an equal respect to each of those three positions?
I'm still waiting for an answer to this question, which to me is pretty central to this discussion of "respect".
I guess it comes down to this: I see the truth-claims of trinitarian creedalism, and most other forms of revealed theism, to be about on the same level of credibility as the truth-claims of homeopathy, tarot, quija boards, spiritualism, ghosts, fairies, and flying spaghetti monsters.
I wouldn't have "respect" for those beliefs, which seem to me to be false, superstitious, improbable, ignorant, and without foundation. Why then, should I have respect for the truth-claims of Christianity?
(This isn't about having respect for people; it is possible to respect someone as a person even if you think they are batshit crazy in one area of their life.)
[ 25. June 2011, 18:31: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I don't know how to talk to religionists in a way that is (a) honest, frank and direct AND (b) doesn't just annoy them. Supernatural believers seem to be allergic to honestly, frankness and directness when it comes to challenging their beleifs.
Does anyone else remember the last person who used to post around here who styled himself "franknhonest"?
I think this is an irregular verb:
I am frank and honest
You are tactless
He is rude
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
So what you are saying, la vie en rouge, is that supernaturalists don't like it when people call out their unsubstantiated bullshit, and they call those who do so "tactless" or "rude".
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I don't know how to talk to religionists in a way that is (a) honest, frank and direct... when it comes to challenging their beleifs.
WHY are you "challenging" them? Are you on some sort of mission to relieve the suffering misguided masses? Pull those big-girl panties out of the crack of your arse, STFU and move on. Sheesh.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But would you respect the beliefs of someone who came up to you and said, "I'm the reincarnation of Napoleon and Julius Caesar, and I'm visiting earth from the planet Invisiblius - an invisible planet between earth and mars. If you don't want to be chewed up by the great sky dragon of Ikta, give me all your money!"?
Assuming he's not brandishing a weapon (in which case calling 911 is the best option), then he's just looney. Discussion is not really in the cards as he doesn't have a full deck.
quote:
What about if they said, "I believe that Odin and Thor are alive"?
I'd probably talk to them and ask them why they believe that, which would lead to ether one of two conclusions. (1) He's looney, then see the first answer, or (2) He's pagan (of some sort), and then I would love to have a serious discussion about his faith journey.
quote:
Or what if they said, "I'm a muslim"?
Well, I'm throwing looney straight out, and having a discussion about his faith journey.
quote:
Would you, on the basis of the fact they you are being nice and don't know everything, accord an equal respect to each of those three positions?
Well duh, no, as some people have all their cards and some don't. Of course you're asking someone with known pagans, atheists, agnostics, and fundamentalists in their family. Our family discussion are interesting to say the least.
quote:
I'm still waiting for an answer to this question, which to me is pretty central to this discussion of "respect".
I guess it comes down to this: I see the truth-claims of trinitarian creedalism, and most other forms of revealed theism, to be about on the same level of credibility as the truth-claims of homeopathy, tarot, quija boards, spiritualism, ghosts, fairies, and flying spaghetti monsters.
I wouldn't have "respect" for those beliefs, which seem to me to be false, superstitious, improbable, ignorant, and without foundation. Why then, should I have respect for the truth-claims of Christianity?
(This isn't about having respect for people; it is possible to respect someone as a person even if you think they are batshit crazy in one area of their life.)
You see, I have respect for people who have well thought-out, or at least heartfelt beliefs.
I don't have respect for people who are (1) looney or (2) don't respect mine.
The problem is that you aren't (1), and you sure are acting like (2)....
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So what you are saying, la vie en rouge, is that supernaturalists don't like it when people call out their unsubstantiated bullshit, and they call those who do so "tactless" or "rude".
It actually doesn't bother me if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Whatever floats your boat, I say. As long as you don't block me from going to church on Sunday morning, I really don't spend my nights mourning the fact that non-Christians don't believe the things I believe.
As for people who believe in Odin or Thor, I actually would not call them stupid if they believed in those things. If believing in Odin or Thor makes them good and decent people, who am I to question their chosen deities?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
I'm a little puzzled by your personal experience of morality and ethics. I find the opposite, that being a Christian very much constrains my freedom to suit myself and seek my own satisfaction over the good of others. But given the statement in the para above, that would be entirely consistent with my view of exercising my own belief in Christ.
What can I say? "Your mileage may vary"?
What I don't understand, is why would you want to use your freedom to "suit yourself" - surely, the purpose of freedom is to "love and serve one another", and what we actually seek is to develop the virtue to do that more consistently and effectively. Seeking to constrain freedom, in that sense, is to look in the wrong direction; we should be seeking to promote excellence - that's a message I can find both in Jesus & Aristotle.
I would want to suit myself because I'm an ordinary selfish human being - weak, ego-centric and inclined to look after my own interests over others. I don't know whose definition of the 'purpose of freedom' you mean either. Yours (which sounds delightfully Christian but hardly universal)? Mine? The capitalist's? The Communist's? The Anarchist's?
And freedom from what? I can be free of prejudice, free to give my life selflessly to others, free from God, free from conscience, free from morals etc etc. Freedom can be abused as much as it can be well used.
The freedom I'm referring to above is the freedom to harm - either myself or others - through that selfishness. And I have found (so far) that no other experience of living has motivated me or empowered me to restrain that harmful urge to abuse my freedom as much as following Christ.
The 'excellence' you refer to is an inevitable concomitant of this. The more wisely people use their freedoms, the more excellent they become. Coincidentally, tomorrow's epistle is Paul's message to the Romans about the pursuance of their 'sanctification' - excellence - through obedience to the work of Christ, which involves becoming a 'slave to righteousness'.
I don't make any claims that only Christians can progress towards this excellence. That would ludicrous. But my understanding of scripture and my own personal experience of God leads me to believe that such 'excellence' proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Naturally, I realize and accept that that won't match the interpretation of non-Christians or even Christians of a different stripe to myself!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Radical Whig
Perhaps I should, to avoid confusion, be clearer in my terminology. "Christian" is an overused and confusing word, and reliance upon it might be one of the reasons that I struggle to make myself understood. When I say 'a Christian in the best, purest and most natural sense of the word', I really mean "one who lives virtuously, in accordance with humane and graceful ethics", not "one who is 'saved' by belief in the atoning effect of the death and resurrection of Jesus".
By your definition, many devout Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are Christian.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But if I get accused of "wielding a verbal machete" just for speaking the truth as I see it, then there is no level playing field at all.
Do you see?
It's not for speaking the truth as you see it--it's for the way in which you do it.
You may not be able to see it, RW, but you've got a whole bunch of people on this thread who are listening to you and trying to support you in your search.
But it's hard when you're acting like a berserker, swinging a spiked battle mace.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 25. June 2011, 23:13: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I don't know how to talk to religionists in a way that is (a) honest, frank and direct... when it comes to challenging their beleifs.
WHY are you "challenging" them? Are you on some sort of mission to relieve the suffering misguided masses? Pull those big-girl panties out of the crack of your arse, STFU and move on. Sheesh.
Well, partly because I think that getting to clearer understandings of reality matters, and that it is only through the clash and interplay of ideas that we refine our notions.
But there is, now you mention it, a bigger mission in my mind here. I think that there is much that is valuable in the Christian tradition - the myth, the story, the narrative, the ethics, the aethetics - and one of my greatest fears is that this will be lost to western civilisation unless it can be retained in a way that does not rely on the truth-claims of "trinitarian creedalism". I know this is the sort of Spongism that people abhor, but, to my mind, if Christian civilisation depends upon the Christian creeds, and cannot exist independently of belief in their claim to real (as opposed to allegorical) truth, then we (i.e. Western civilisation) are doomed.
I'm trying, I suppose, to articulate a sort of Christianity for a civilisation which rejects belief in supernaturalism, because I think it is pretty much our only hope. Really, I'm trying for a Second Reformation, more radical than the first.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
By your definition, many devout Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are Christian.
Also, many atheists, deists, pantheists, and not sures.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The definition of "Christian" that you use in not the one that 99% of the population uses. Do you really think you can get everyone to accept your meaning?
Why do you care?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Christianity really is insane, and those who REALLY, ACTUALLY, believe that stuff must either have a screw loose, or be intellectually lazy, or timid, or just generally fail to understand that it's NOT REAL, FOLKS! Now, you might disagree with this, but that's only because you are locked in a delusional fantasy.
See the difference? Is that what you call "leveling the playing field"- wielding a verbal machete?
I don't see that is wrong with that statement. I think it is true - and quite measured. You might disagree, and say that it is not true. Fine. What's the problem with that? We can discuss these disagreements. But if I get accused of "wielding a verbal machete" just for speaking the truth as I see it, then there is no level playing field at all.
Do you see?
Seriously? You don't see what is wrong with putting "NOT REAL, FOLKS!" and other phrases in capital letters? While describing people as crazy and delusional? You think that's no different to the other quote provided? You think that it's MEASURED?
Wow. I mean, just... wow. My estimation of you just went down several notches. When you started on this road last year, we had some quite lengthy exchanges in Purgatory and they always seemed pretty healthy and respectful to me. But since then I've watched you spiral down into this mode where you feel the need to be highly disparaging to people.
And now I discover that you can't even detect the difference, when it's expressly pointed out.
And yes, there are circumstances where I rant and rave at people who push my buttons. But at least I can tell when that's what is happening.
[ 25. June 2011, 23:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But would you respect the beliefs of someone who came up to you and said, "I'm the reincarnation of Napoleon and Julius Caesar, and I'm visiting earth from the planet Invisiblius - an invisible planet between earth and mars. If you don't want to be chewed up by the great sky dragon of Ikta, give me all your money!"?
I would tell them to tell Ikta that I don't respond well to blackmail.
cf What Anglican Brat said about Odin and Thor.
[ 26. June 2011, 00:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Incidentally, did I mention that I once spent an enjoyable weekend writing a constitution for Ankh-Morpork?
Gsp. You wrote a constitution for Ankh-Morpork?? Does that not come dangerously close to believing in a fairytale?
Excellent point!
I'd just read Going Postal (I think); there is a part need the end where Vetriani presides over a meeting of the guilds, and this chimed well with the ideas of neo-medieval civic republicanism.
If there is a unifying direction to my research it is probably something like "How can institutions and processes of ancient and medieval republicanism be applied to improve the quality of democracy today?" So I got very excited.
I wrote a constitution for ankh-morpork because it gave me a ready-made playing field for working out ideas. I wasn't writing in the abstract, but in a well-developed scenario. I could experiment with neo-medieval republicanism, not on a blank piece of paper, but in a "living" city, filled with characters.
The story gave me images, narratives, aesthetics, structures, around which to build an imaginary project of my own - the ultimate (although very distant) purpose of which is to make life better for real people in the real world (i.e. earth, not discworld).
Well, I was initially more worried about you actually enjoying writing a constitution, but now that you phrase the Anhk-Morpork exercise in such terms, it does actually sound very interesting! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Folks mustn't think, when I use words like magic and fairytales, that I am being unduely harsh. I'm not. Magic and fairytales can be good things in lots of ways - but only so long as we know that they are not really real. We can inhabit imaginary universes if we choose, and use them to provide narratives and imagery to help us; the Greeks had their myths, and they were good and useful, just as the Christian myths can be good and useful, or as Discworld novels can be good and useful. But they are only imaginary, or at best legendary - they are not real.
It is helpful to know how you employ the term "fairytale". Obviously, you use "myth" as a subgenre of "fairytale", where as I (and probably a lot of other people here) would see them as two distinct categories. I would class a fairytale as a story with magical elements which are of prime operational significance to its plot, yet which has absolutely no bearing on my everyday experience, has no explanatory power and has no or only weak symbolic character. If I call someone's faith a "fairytale", I am saying it might be entertaining but is otherwise void of any meaning. A myth is a totally different kettle of fish, as it is either a irrefutable story which some would call a factual course of events, or more often a narrative full of symbols pointing to a reality beyond the text itself.
According to such a definition, no religion can be based on a fairytale, although I personally might construe a particular narrative as such until discovering that a substantial body of followers attribute explanatory power for a world-view to it, in which case I would be forced to upgrade it to a myth! (i.e., without the knowledge that Greek myths were fundamental to the structure of Hellenic folk religion, I would call them fairytales)
quote:
Incidentally, if you go to Constitutional Commission's Resources Page, and scroll down to the bottom document on the page, you can see one of the eventual spin-offs from the Ankh-Morpork idea; a hypothetical example of a civic constitution for an imaginery city called Pugin-Ruskin.
I'll happily go through the pdf more carefully, however, after a good night's sleep!
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The definition of "Christian" that you use in not the one that 99% of the population uses. Do you really think you can get everyone to accept your meaning?
No, I don't think that I can get everyone to accept my meaning. Some, maybe..
quote:
[QB]Why do you care?
I think the post above explains why I care: there's too much good in the Christian culture and tradition, seen as whole, to exclude from it those who cannot believe in the magic and the fairytales (I need to digest molopata's distinction between "myth" and "fairytale" more fully).
Orfeo, my point is, why should that language be offensive or unacceptable to you. Ok, it is a bit strident, but why do you find it offensive?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Just fucking grow up RW. You're not the first to find themselves suddenly sure of themselves and you won't be the last. But you are surely the most boring.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Just fucking grow up RW. You're not the first to find themselves suddenly sure of themselves and you won't be the last. But you are surely the most boring.
Why? Why does it get this reaction?
Am I any more sure of myself than you are?
It's exactly this sort of reaction that almost makes me just wish the Romans had had a few more lions...
...why do you find what I am saying, or even how I am saying it, so deeply objectionable?
I'm really on the side of the Jesus-followers, but the trinitarian creedalist Christians make it almost impossible for me to stay there.
No wonder I'm occasionally moved to "fuck the lot of you" outbursts - it's all so blood frustrating.
So many Christians here want to play tennis without the net when they are serving, but insist that the net be put back up when I return.
[ 26. June 2011, 01:00: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Just fucking grow up RW. You're not the first to find themselves suddenly sure of themselves and you won't be the last. But you are surely the most boring.
Why? Why does it get this reaction?
Because you come across like an irritating, whining, know it all who wants to piss all over other peoples beliefs because you're not man enough to believe them yourself. I don't think you've made some great step into honesty or belief, I think you're too fucking stupid to understand that the supernatural is where it is at.
quote:
Am I any more sure of myself than you are?
You certainly bang on about it in a more boring fashion than anyone else in Christendom.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
You see, it's a waste of time arguing with that sort of thing; I try to be measured and reasonable, and am accused of being wordy and boring; I try to be vivid and direct, and am accussed of being rude and aggressive; I try defend my position, and I am accused of being insuffiently humble; I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable, and I am accused of not having the guts to believe things that are absurd, as if that were some sort of test of character.
Seriously, you folks probably don't realise this, but you are turning "my father's house" into a nest of vipers; I'm trying to save Christianity - admittedly a very different sort of Christianity to that advocated by trinitarian creedalists - and I am accused of wanting to destroy it.
Point out the unfairness and double-standard of all this, and I am accused of being a winging moaner.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Although this quote, from another thread, explains why I do bother: quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That's why we as a society have to become less individualistic and work on real community building across the boundaries of race and class. I don't expect that to happen till Kingdom come (literally), but it's what's needed.
I am convinced, however, that we behave according to what we love, so if we can figure out ways to help kids love things that lead to life and community rather than money, violence, power, and personal prestige, then our society will be better off. The question is, how do we do that? How can we help kids in the upper as well as lower classes learn to love others as they love themselves, to love beauty and truth and goodness so much they'd rather give up a little so others can have all they need?
That's where I'm coming from; a very different position from that of Dawkins et al. Dawkins et al. are, of course, right in their statements about the nature of reality; so, if we want to maintain that which is good in Christianity, we have to adapt it to fit the nature of reality - that is, to develop some sort of naturalistic Jesusism.
I think the whole future of western civilisation - indeed, perhaps human survival - depends upon this.
We are losing our religion - the religion which has been the anchor, leven, salt and light of our civilisation - because Christianity has not been able to adjust itself to what we know about reality.
When it is very normal and usual to be an "Atheist Christian", I think we will be a little bit closer to the kingdom.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Ok...well...good luck with saving Western civilization and all that.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable
You realize, of course, that physics disagrees with you regarding supernaturalism - or are you the sort that's convinced your five senses are the 'be all, end all' for defining what is natural - or "super"?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable
You realize, of course, that physics disagrees with you regarding supernaturalism - or are you the sort that's convinced your five senses are the 'be all, end all' for defining what is natural - or "super"?
Well, if it is natural it is not "super-natural".
We used to think that the universe was a fairly simplistic newtonian mechanism. Now we know better - and we are still working on it.
Our understanding of nature increases, and the questions increase too. That's just good theology.
There is no god but God, and God is nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ok...well...good luck with saving Western civilization and all that.
Yes, I know it is a biggie -
- it would be nice if the churches would help -
- but no, they insist that their magical beliefs are more important than human wellbeing. I should have allies from across the Christian left and centre - but, no, they are more concerned about driving out the evil heretics.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why do you hate us so?
Because, by insisting that creedalist trinitarianism is the only acceptable response to Jesus call to the kingdom of God, and limiting that response and the boundaries of the kingdom to those who will accept those beliefs, you are making the Kingdom more exclusive and harder to realise. You are guilty of priestcraft: interposing your religion between people and God, and setting up barriers that hinder the progress of the gospel.
I don't mind, I really don't mind, if people are so deluded as to believe in the magic and the fairytales; I do mind when they try to make such belief central, and try to exclude those who see through it, because the world really needs the message, teaching and way of Jesus, and this message, teaching and way should not be open only to those who believe in supernaturalism.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
To over-extend a metaphor which doesn't exactly fit, it is bit like you are selling indulgences; and you hate me because I point out that selling indulgences is unnecessary to salvation; you doubly hate me because I expose the deep institutional arrogance in your indulgence selling. The indulgences are fake, false, superstituous, ineffectual; they tie up the consciences of honest people with unnecessary doctrines, and people away who cannot believe in the false God of trinitarianism away from the way of Jesus.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
My mistake RW, you truly are the saviour of the world. I bow before you and believe everything you say.
Except I don't because your spiritual masturbation is so much bullshit.
Don't try to 'save Christianity', it's not your job, it doesn't need saving and it doesn't need you. Get on with your life, live it anyway you want and stop getting so het up with your nonsense.
A wiser man than you said that when you leave a church you should stfu about it for five years to give you time to settle in your new position. It's advice worth taking.
I look forward to the moment when you grow up and realise that you're just fighting against nothing. Jesus is looking down on you and smiling indulgently at your arrogance. When you learn that you might be worth debating, until then why don't you find a website that is in the least bit interested in the contents of the tissues into which you wank off.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
Seriously? You don't see what is wrong with putting "NOT REAL, FOLKS!" and other phrases in capital letters? While describing people as crazy and delusional? You think that's no different to the other quote provided? You think that it's MEASURED?
I think he must have grown up in a barn.
RadicalWhig: quote:
You see, it's a waste of time arguing with that sort of thing; I try to be measured and reasonable, and am accused of being wordy and boring; I try to be vivid and direct, and am accussed of being rude and aggressive; I try defend my position, and I am accused of being insuffiently humble; I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable, and I am accused of not having the guts to believe things that are absurd, as if that were some sort of test of character.
Different people respond differently to different approaches. Personally, as I pointed out before, I liked this post quite well. Very clear and understandable, especially on where we differ. But that is fine with me. Maybe others might find it boring or wordy, but I don't.
Being labeled to "have a screw loose, or be intellectually lazy, or timid, or just generally fail to understand that it's NOT REAL, FOLKS! Now, you might disagree with this, but that's only because you are locked in a delusional fantasy" not so much. If you were really into saving the world from Trinitarianism and for secular Jesusism, you'd being trying to persuade people. But you aren't. You are just like the crazy-ass street preacher who waves a Bible under your nose screaming that you are going to Hell. He really doesn't care if he saves anyone, persuades anyone, or does the world a whit of good. He just wants everyone to hear as loudly as possible that HE"S RIGHT!!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You see, it's a waste of time arguing with that sort of thing; I try to be measured and reasonable, and am accused of being wordy and boring; I try to be vivid and direct, and am accussed of being rude and aggressive; I try defend my position, and I am accused of being insuffiently humble; I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable, and I am accused of not having the guts to believe things that are absurd, as if that were some sort of test of character.
Seriously, you folks probably don't realise this, but you are turning "my father's house" into a nest of vipers; I'm trying to save Christianity - admittedly a very different sort of Christianity to that advocated by trinitarian creedalists - and I am accused of wanting to destroy it.
Point out the unfairness and double-standard of all this, and I am accused of being a winging moaner.
(Emphasis mine.)
No, you don't sound like a whinging moaner. Respectfully, you sound like you see yourself as a martyr or messiah--even like you're the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
A certain amount of that is common during conversion. But it's beginning to be worrisome.
RW, reread your posts, and imagine that they're from someone else who believes something else--maybe the follower of Norse gods you mentioned. How would the attitude strike you??
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You see, it's a waste of time arguing with that sort of thing; I try to be measured and reasonable, and am accused of being wordy and boring; I try to be vivid and direct, and am accussed of being rude and aggressive; I try defend my position, and I am accused of being insuffiently humble; I try to explain my beliefs, and why I think supernaturalism is unsustainable, and I am accused of not having the guts to believe things that are absurd, as if that were some sort of test of character.
Seriously, you folks probably don't realise this, but you are turning "my father's house" into a nest of vipers; I'm trying to save Christianity - admittedly a very different sort of Christianity to that advocated by trinitarian creedalists - and I am accused of wanting to destroy it.
Point out the unfairness and double-standard of all this, and I am accused of being a winging moaner.
Have you read Richard Holloway's stuff? Now he is an example of someone who is seeking reform to the supernatural Christian faith through a rationalist approach. I quite enjoy the challenge of his work, and similar authors.
The difference here, though, is he doesn't come across like an atheist David Icke, which it really seems as if you do! I think, when you stop seeing Christians as Lizard-tongued aliens, but fellow travellers on the same planet, your capacity to communicate as effectively as, say, Holloway and the very many other theologians who follow a non-supernaturalist approach to faith, may begin to improve a little!
Anyway, keep plugging away!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Don't try to 'save Christianity', it's not your job, it doesn't need saving and it doesn't need you.
Actually, I think it sort of is my job; some of us care about the state of the world and the future of humanity, and are trying to do something about it. There is a profound spiritual crisis in our civilisation, and unless we, as a culture, can address this, we are all screwed.
quote:
Get on with your life, live it anyway you want and stop getting so het up with your nonsense.
Getting on with my lift and living it as I think is right sometimes involves getting het up about things I think are important.
Sorry this offends you.
quote:
A wiser man than you said that when you leave a church you should stfu about it for five years to give you time to settle in your new position. It's advice worth taking.
I cannot think of any reason to take that advice; it doesn't even sound very wise.
quote:
I look forward to the moment when you grow up and realise that you're just fighting against nothing.
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to the moment when you realise that there is so much to fight against: tyranny, torture, exploitation, environmental degradation, and a hegemonic assumption of consumerist individualism - and that these require a theological response, because all socio-economic problems are political, and all politics is cultural, and all culture is at root religious - Christianity, as the root of our culture, is too important to be left to those who think it's real.
quote:
Jesus is looking down on you and smiling indulgently at your arrogance.
Ok, here's a question: can you spot the arrogance in your sentence?
Jesus is dead. He was killed because he opposed the wealthy and the powerful. But there's an even more powerful myth about his resurrection - it's not true, of course, but it is nevertheless inspirational. If we insist that only those who think it is true are capable of sharing in its inspiration, then we are needlessly pushing people out and leaving the wider culture to the forces of mammon.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
No, you don't sound like a whinging moaner. Respectfully, you sound like you see yourself as a martyr or messiah--even like you're the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Oh, get a sense of proportion. I was taking a well-known passage and just spinning it around a bit to illustrate a point. I don't see myself as a martyr or messiah.
quote:
RW, reread your posts, and imagine that they're from someone else who believes something else--maybe the follower of Norse gods you mentioned. How would the attitude strike you??
Well, a bit crazy; but I'm not the one who is making supernatural claims. I'm just saying that humanity, and western civilisation in particular, is in a sorry state spiritually, ethically and asethetically, to the detriment of us all, because our understanding of how the universe workd has progressed beyond that which can be maintained by bronze age religions - and the religions, if they have a value to be preserved, must find a way of unpacking that value from its theistic wrapper.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't hate you in the least. It's a pity you hate us.
I don't really hate you; I just get frustrated. I think you are right in that you don't really hate me either; it feels more like your technique is just to smile sweetly in unspoken contempt.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Have you read Richard Holloway's stuff? Now he is an example of someone who is seeking reform to the supernatural Christian faith through a rationalist approach. I quite enjoy the challenge of his work, and similar authors.
Yes. I really enjoy his work.
Richard Holloway confirmed me into the Scottish Episcopal church before he retired/resigned.
I think my mistake was that I thought his position was pretty mainstream, the sort of thing that nearly all educated Christians in the UK believed - with the exception of a few crazy evangelicals etc. That, of course, turned out to be a mistake - his position is a minority one, and most people still believe the supernatural way is the only way.
quote:
The difference here, though, is he doesn't come across like an atheist David Icke, which it really seems as if you do! I think, when you stop seeing Christians as Lizard-tongued aliens, but fellow travellers on the same planet, your capacity to communicate as effectively as, say, Holloway and the very many other theologians who follow a non-supernaturalist approach to faith, may begin to improve a little!
Well, it's a bit odd I should come across as an atheist, when I've said time and time again that I'm not an atheist.
But it's hard to put my position across. Maybe if I were writing a book, it would all be more ordered, measured, balanced, nuanced, and structured. I'm on an internet forum trying, on a cranky old laptop, to respond to criticism, vitriol, and misunderstanding from what feels like sixteen different directions at once.
[ 26. June 2011, 08:48: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Also, the person I've read who seems closest to my position is Mark Vernon, who develops a form of "Christian Agnosticism". His "After Atheism" and "How to be an Agnostic" are well worth reading.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I think my mistake was that I thought his position was pretty mainstream, the sort of thing that nearly all educated Christians in the UK believed - with the exception of a few crazy evangelicals etc. That, of course, turned out to be a mistake - his position is a minority one, and most people still believe the supernatural way is the only way.
I ask you again - where do you get this from?
I no longer believe in the supernatural at all, but I'm still a Christian who manages to attend Church without getting angry at those who do. I imagine there are many, many like me.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Orfeo, my point is, why should that language be offensive or unacceptable to you. Ok, it is a bit strident, but why do you find it offensive?
Where did I say I found it offensive? I just find it totally discouraging of meaningful discussion.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
RW, you're several months out from your "conversion experience" and are behaving as obnoxiously as a newbie Christian can and often does. They also think it's their personal responsibility to save the world. Most people ignore them because they come off, not as genuinely caring, but as arrogant and disrespectful and sometimes hateful. The newbie Christian then interprets this as hateful world persecution rather than looking at themselves for any responsibility for how they're perceived. Perhaps with a little time and more experience you'll learn to actually engage with people in discussion that might actually be helpful to the world, but for right now you're coming off as an over exuberant newbie who also cries unjust persecution rather than looking to see if there's any reason for the reaction you're getting.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
