The next post I’m writing will quite possibly turn into a series. I need to let some of the words and ideas mature in my head, maybe rewrite it once or twice. So I’m leaving you with this for the time being.
Real Live Preacher wrote a post a couple of weeks ago, titled So you think you want to try Christianity? I would like to invite people that are interested in taking an active part in the little “community” forming around my blog to go and read that post, then come back here and share your thoughts and impressions of it, if you feel you have any interesting thoughts to share. Use an inquisitive, curious mindset. Be nice, don’t be judgemental. Use an “anthropologist’s eye”.
The aim is not to start a debate, the aim is to foster a positive exchange of honest thoughts and ideas, to have a friendly fireside chat with a couple of friends, while we watch the last few flames lick the air, the moon peeking through the clouds, moments before we all crawl into our sleeping bags to listen to the sounds of the night. What do you think?
I might be rather busy and stressed this week — some operator & on-call duties, with a skilled shadow watching my every move. Next weekend, maybe go skiing. I will try to have my next post out within 7 days. Grrr, silly “real life” rears its ugly head again.
58 responses so far ↓
1 miller // Dec 1, 2008 at 2:51 am
My first thought: I guess I’m not his target audience. I’m not sure whether to feel left out or what.
When he says “you are now officially one of my favorite people”, he doesn’t really explain why, leaving it up to my imagination. My imagination is very cynical… But I’m absolutely sure he meant something much nicer than that.
2 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:34 am
Reading…I am soooo not the intended audience for this.
Ha. I see miller wrote the same thing!
I don’t think so. It just seemed like a friendly and light piece to me.
3 George Maru // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:41 am
RLP writes: “And my experience is that they are often incredibly nice, kind, open to new ideas. Just cool people.” True, true, true.
I agree that if you’ve got a spiritual itch, you should scratch it. But why limit yourself to one tradition only, if humanity offers such a rich set of experiences to draw from?
I disagree with RLP about getting together in a room to talk about God, or his absence, and the meaning of life, or lack thereof.
Change the talk about God to a discovery of new music. Change the talk about life’s meaning to a walk on the beach. And I’m there. I think a spirituality for the future should be less God-obsessed.
4 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 1, 2008 at 9:42 am
Echoing miller and Ben…RLP lost me on the first sentence.
I wonder how he would respond to an atheist joining his circle of doubters…not to stir the pot, but to see how he would handle the atheistic answers to the questions he wants to pose.
5 Werner // Dec 1, 2008 at 10:45 pm
On first read it sounds like an easy going you know don’t stir the pot kind of evangelism. When I read a little bit more about this guy though I get the feeling that he is really trying to find God. Because of his brutal honesty and the fact that he is devoting his life to this, it could seem to non believers that if RLP cannot find God, then how are they going to?
I know this is probably not the kind of response you were looking for, I am just being honest here too :/
The videos I have seen are good though. He is a good person.
6 Hugo // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:24 am
Heh… Werner:
No, these responses are all great! I’ve got my own comments to add, but that will have to wait. I must sleep now, because I might just get paged in the middle of the night.
7 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:55 am
One of the statements ias very, very strange to me:
“I don’t believe in God myself sometimes. I come and go with that one. Sometimes life seems rather bleak, and I just can’t see it, you know? I want to. Just can’t.”
I have no idea what the bleakness or non-bleakness of life has to do with the universe having a powerful, sentient creator. Nor do I have any idea why I might want to believe or dis-believe the universe had a sentient creator. (shrug)
Ah, diversity.
8 Werner // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:27 am
I think the connection there has to do with the fact that it is generally believed that if you walk in the grace of God you will have an empowered life full of joy, happiness and even meaning. By watching closely I have determined that this is not the case. Bad things happen to good people and I think that Christians struggle to believe in an all powerful and loving God when things don’t go their way. Would you not help a loved one if you had the power to do so? Maybe God is all about tough love. Difficult to tell for us I think.
9 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:51 am
But this is assuming that a God who created the entire universe would have any particular interest in humans, an assumption I find baseless. First I would need reasons to believe the universe had a sentient, super-powerful creator. Second I would need reasons to think the creator was concerned with one species that has been around for only the last .0007% of the universe’s history and only occupying a narrow surface on 10^-60 of the volume of the universe (both fractions are rough.) Perceiving things as ‘bleak’ might convince me I was wrong about the second conclusion but would not affect the first.
It’s very confusing to me.
10 Werner // Dec 2, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I would not like to think of it as an assumption, more like a reasonable axiom. Who or what would be more interesting than the human race to a god? Clearly our creator has physics under the belt so that cannot really interest him. Humans that you can have “relationship” with, much more interesting I’d say.
For sure! I can get myself into massive confusion with these kind of things. I mean, even if suddenly our creator reviels himself to us, we would still be perplexed about who created him. Where does the confusion end!? Maybe not knowing it all is better than knowing it all.
11 Werner // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:04 pm
And that is why I like this blog, Hugo has moved past all these frivolous questions and progressed to the more juicy bits. I am just along with the ride.
12 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Beatles. Black holes. Cosmic rays. Galactic spiral arms. The planet Reath, orbiting the star Los, where intelligent life evolved 200 million years ago. The planet Borgon, where intelligent life will evolve 200 million years from now.
Look at the variety of things people are interested in. If I tell you ‘I have a friend Dan’, what assumptions can you make about what he finds interesting? Not much. That’s with me giving you a sentient who is the same species, living at the same time in history, etc.
Sorry, I don’t see this as obvious at all. (shrug) It seems like nothing more than projection.
He clearly has humans under the belt as well.
13 Werner // Dec 2, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Good point!
Clearly I cannot know. I was just thinking that free will might be disjoint from logic( i.e not predictable ), which makes it more interesting. But as you state, for a all knowing creator it could be trivial.
14 Hugo // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:17 am
Hehe…
I don’t like this comment of mine much, too verbose, not saying much I guess, but I feel like throwing it out there.
@Werner: “moved past all these frivolous questions and progressed to the more juicy bits”
Careful now, the questions aren’t frivolous to everyone, some find them quite juicy! (Or maybe I’m being over-cautious, because people get upset at my words so easily.)
Here’s what I love about these comments: [... well, in short, saneman and gerhard haven't commented. But I'm not going to wait for a bad example.] – they’re open-minded, they respect differences of opinion, they’re positive.
People recognising other people may take another path through life. The first point of me sharing this post is as an indication that there is interest in doing that kind of thing. And it isn’t based on childhood brainwashing, it’s curiosity. It matters not if it is good or bad, it’s present. And it’s stupid (my opinion) to get all upset about it.
* miller recognises he’s a bit cynical, and calls it into question. (Amen! uh, so-be-it, sorry.)
* Ben sees the piece as friendly or nice, not a big and immoral threat to human safety.
* George Maru respectfully and openly disagrees on some points, plainly without insults (I’m gatvol for saneman and gerhard, anyone noticed?), and he has some positive suggestions about positive alternatives. For something rather than against something else. And leaves room. That’s the way he feels about it. Perfectly fine for me to also disagree a bit and ponder the kinds of conversations RLP might have with these guys. About the absence of an objective outside meaning assigner and the meaning of a certain ideal in life. So we have a good open chat about how different people would like to approach things. If a fundie comes by and is curious about others’ views, I’d think there’s enough space for a fair conversation without getting destructive.
* Kenneth echo’s miller and Ben, and wonders openly what the conversation would contain.
I don’t think RLP wants to pose particular questions, rather that there will be discussions because some people coming in will have some questions. RLP’s told me he often prefers atheists that like Jesus more than he likes Christians. Three guesses why: we all know how Christians get sometimes. Kinda like “atheists for Jesus”, eh. Anyway…
Werner’s response is just as cool! Because openness is good, and the way it is represented is good. There’s scope for conversation. On the “RLP cannot find God” comment: yes, indeed… RLP’s had his disillusionments. My favourites are usually the “Foy Davis” stories, stories of an ex pastor and his walk through life. Has some excellent things he’s sharing. The Disillusionment Chronicles are excellent as well.
http://delicious.com/hugovdm/rlp?page=2
Anyway, the point is, with RLP it isn’t about the God that the fundamentalists offer. That which Shofar offers, RLP isn’t offering. He is pondering the Christian tradition’s answers to meaning and way of life. … getting to that:
* Ben’s comment:
which is also open and non-judgemental, grants RLP’s his path. (Thanks Ben.
) As well as those that are the target market of that blog post. Ben’s comments remain about the “logical definition”, the “God of the Philosophers”: the creator of the universe.
Again this is an example to me of the “God of Faith” being what it is about: I still assert that no-one starts their religious journey with the idea “hmm, where did the universe come from?” and therefore conclude to follow the Bible and the Christian story. (OK, some parents tell their kids “god made it”. So I’m wrong, yea.) Anyway: this story illustrates to me what God is to many… um… of the “elite”? of those trained in seminary? outside the US? many of my friends appreciate this, the pastors and theologians I know appreciate this, it’s mostly the fundamentalists that explicitly sell other angles. “God is absent” is not so much a statement of “the universe suddenly has no cause anymore”. It’s something deep touching the heart of the “believer” (non-fundie kind) and a way of expressing wonder about this world.
The factual statement/definition? … I’m again busy writing about things I have decided to postpone until I can put together a well worded post. Less rambly than this. Anyway, I’m certainly not an exception in my way of speaking about God. Or “the divine”. And I agree George Maru may be onto something (heh, I’m softening things with words, eh) that it would be good if more spirituality talk was “less God-obsessed”. If our talk of the divine were more multi-lingual, I’d say.
Wait, I should get back to meta-level look at the comments…
Werner weighs in on what it means to walk a path with God, and that things don’t necessarily work well for them. That’s the narrative of Job as well – I’ll trim down that post some time, and publish just the bits on traditional and alternative wisdom (“life aint exactly fair, but that experience is still really awesome – in the sense of awe-inspiring, unweaving the rainbow style”).
Here’s an interesting occurrence then: I’d love to respond to certain comments in certain ways. A certain way I’d like to steer conversations to build bridges. But that’ll never “scale”. Imagine limiting this to “conversations with me”. Blah! So Ben takes it in his direction.
I must also disagree with that. Sentient beings are the most interesting things. I can build computers, I can program computers. But what would be remarkable would be another sentient being that I could connect with… that’s the whole dream of finding extra terrestrial self-aware intelligence. What a mind-blowing thing that would be! Or like Boltzmann brains coming into existence. That’s what I’d be curious about. That’s what Werner also says! Bingo, Werner and I think alike.
On confusion, Werner continues:
He touches on creator-of-the-creator idea. I have another friend who deconverted and wondered “why would anyone willingly choose to start immersing themselves in such riddles, when they were happily and merrily going along until then?”
And his mind now particularly boggles at the absolute craziness of our very existence. The very fact that we exist. Where did we come from. That thing is mind boggling! And confusing! And “we did come from somewhere”. Different from saying “original cause” in terms of cause-and-effect. And Werner has a personified view of that then… which is mostly where we differ then. I’ve pretty much “de-personified” God. What do you have then? It’s touching on the “ground of being” terms of Tillich.
Werner comments:
“Maybe not knowing it all is better than knowing it all.”
Indeed… some things are sometimes better not even asked. “The Problem with Empiricism”, old post of mine, touched on this, flipping narratives around a bit, suggesting atheists are living happily in a garden of eden, having accepted the rule of not eating the forbidden fruit. “What created all this?” That question. They’re happy with “oh, we don’t know, and that’s okay.” Whereas religious people have narratives to answer these. So who were the people that asked the “why/how?” question then? It’s an interesting recursion in culture as well. I’ll leave some of my weird thought experiments out of it for now. I gotta head to bed.
“Nothing more than” sounds a bit like “nothing-buttery” to me though.
Ben maintains shrugs and “it seems to me”, which I much appreciate. It keeps the conversation open as well. God-as-projection, God-as-mirror in which humanity sees itself, God-as-something-inside, recursive consciousness and Boltzmann brains popping into existence and observing “my, we exist! and around us a universe intricate and remarkable enough to support our existence! Let’s investigate!” Telescoping self-aware consciousness, when viewed from certain angles.
OK, that’s what happens when I just let a flurry of ideas out. Crazy all over the place, I need to sit down and note them down with more patience and time. But the thoughts are exciting to me, the mind-bogglingness. To the point where I will point out “well, there are many things we cannot know. sometimes it is best to simply accept and live in wonder/amazement”. And now I’m thinking in terms of science-minded people (I’m tired of the “atheist” word, now, actually), in particular, who trust their empirical senses, and question and seek to understand what they can.
I find the poetry and thought experiments have much of interest to inspire and motivate. And destroying minds is not pretty. Minds reared on personified appreciation of what I call “God” connect it to certain ways of talking and thinking and defining it, definitions which are unfortunate, for they don’t stand up to logical and empirical scrutiny. If that “attack of reason” brings down a mind’s appreciation for reality, it is such a waste. And badly damaging.
You see this in people that come out of cults: people that lose their motivation, sometimes takes years to get any drive back. The recovery period. A life wasted. I came too close to wasting my own life. Still feel too close to that, still thinking I should shut down this blog, and try and make my job my new raison d’être, this blog being too time and energy consuming. But here lies my passion. So great to find a passion, so critical. I think, anyway. People find meaning in many places, yes, here’s mine. At the moment. Shutting it down would feel like cutting out an important organ of my body. Ditto for coming out of a cult.
I certainly don’t want to “keep people under”. That accusation hurts me too deeply. Werner, depends on how you spin definitions, some might want to label me an atheist. And I won’t tell them they’re wrong. Seems some people think I’m being “intellectually dishonest” if I don’t accept their label for however they define me. Anyway, just so you know.
In any case, enough of a ramble from me. The great thing about Paul Kurtz, and Humanism in general (Paul Kurtz’ kind), is that it is constructive. It is about what they’re standing *for* rather than what against. Of course this isn’t easy, destroying is easier. Quicker. Creating, building, developing, adding, that’s much harder. Much.
Enough for now. The plan is to have many of these ideas better expressed. And to eventually have a means to much more easily link to anything I’ve written in the past or bookmarked on delicious. And ditto for anyone participating. I’d love it — in an ideal world — if everyone here could decide for themselves who’s “in the pub” and who’s “fighting in the back alley” or whatnot. I don’t want hard lines, I want space for growth and development. Long-term view, no conversion-focus, relationships, friendships, mutual understanding. A fundamentalist need not be told he’s wrong. That’s just flipping the coin over.
“I’m right, you’re wrong. I have the best truth.” Irrespective of whether that is the best or not, that comes across as fundamentalism. That’s what religious people have been saying all these years. Now it’s scientists that are saying it. And they have the authority of science and empiricism. Hard to argue against that, eh. Like it was hard to argue against God in pre-enlightenment societies. Tit-for-tat. Revenge. Horrors. Modernism, in culture and relationships, wanting to convert everyone to the “one correct way of seeing things”. The folly of that kind of mindset was demonstrated, and humanity moved on.
What I like about these comments are that they’re open enough. The discussion that started up had me concerned, this could turn hairy, so I’m immediately worried or even upset. But Werner doesn’t seem like he’s biting into an argument, bless his soul!
(Poetic language, matters not whether the soul is something that lives on, or is “just” an element of the human experience.) Else it might have escalated.
I bet my comment here is probably the worst of the lot. I’m sitting here and “handing down” the way I see things? And what I expect everyone else to do. Like not get into prolonged debates. (When that’s exactly what *I* do.) The really challenging thing in taking the path I’m hoping this blog will take, is to learn where to probe and where to let it go. The other debates become a whole big mess going from one point to the next. Find a single point to share a bit, share, move on. Wait for questions. Little bits, don’t force anyone. saneman and gerhard seem like they want to “force” things. And gerhard has the balls to call others’ actions “rape”. Yikes.
Um, what am I doing. Ranting/rambling. Saying things I probably shouldn’t have. Many ideas though, and ways to structure interaction to avoid debate spontaneously exploding. But also providing a place where people can go, if that’s where they get their energy. I just don’t think it is psychologically healthy. But who am I to say? So I need to provide all options.
15 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:18 am
Ack! Don’t say those words! We will get sidetracked into a non-resolvable semantic dispute!
Hugo, are you going to point RLP to this post for his enjoyment?
16 Hugo // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:43 am
Please don’t underestimate my own ability to find fault with my previous comment. It is “wrong”, “reason and logic” speaking, in oh so many ways. I’m the king of thinking too much, to the point of breaking down my own confidence in so many things. When you get to the point where you’re critically re-evaluating *everything*, you get to self-paralysis. Hard to balance, the above is what happens when I just let loose.
So, next challenge, if anyone feels like taking a critical angle: do find faults with my comment, but see if you can first find the positive to connect with. That which seems to be worth something. Then do share your concerns, your critical comments, but see if you can share them in ways that I can say “hehe, yea, kinda phrased that badly, didn’t I.” Or “hmm, now that’s something I hadn’t thought of. I withdraw those words.” In some senses, in politics or relationships, for example, you could describe this as providing the other with enough scope to “save face”.
Most worth being critical about: the places where I’m not giving *other* people enough scope. If we can all come up for each other, *especially* those we disagree with, then we’re on the right track. (In my opinion, the way I see things. There are also other tracks, that might be just as “right”, but that I don’t like. So “right track” here is really just means “the path I like”. Y’know?)
Is this tricky to balance? You bet! There’s no perfect balance. Just “pick your battles”, and be as friendly as possible beyond that. (Again… ugh, need I repeat myself…? Just my dreams/hopes. Horrid debate gets me into the mindset where I second guess every single thing I write. How’s that productive for anyone?)
17 Hugo // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:49 am
@Ben:
Nope! I doubt it.
Excellent way of handling it! Yay! Shun the ugly debates. Shun!
We’ll eventually figure out how to handle those topics best. [optimism] Am I conceited to want to always start them off with a thoughtful post, to try and give a balanced and peaceful frame for further comments?
OK. To bed with me, way past my bed-time. I *must not* even *think* about any comments on this blog until I’m *done* with work for the day. (Questionable how that works when I’m on-call. *grin*.)
18 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:06 am
Hopefully my comments are positive regardless if in agreement or disagreement.
I hear exactly what you’re saying and draw the exact opposite inference. You find sentiences that are significantly lesser – modern computers – to be not nearly as interesting as sentient beings that you can connect with. First, wouldn’t human sentience (which is currently incapable of creating or ruling a universe) probably be much lesser than God sentience, making humans:God analogous to computers:Hugo?
Second, is it likely a God would also value connecting with sentient beings? We are social animals and DO value it. Non-social animals don’t seem to value it. What basis is there for choosing one model over the other?
Basically, until a God wrote an essay or something describing his interests, I think we’re speculating on very thin ice.
19 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:05 am
That’s a really interesting phrase. It’s rattling around in my head. On this, I am very non-modern, regardless of my very modern epistemology.
20 miller // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:15 am
I have a different angle on this comment. I understand why the bleakness of life might be associated with the non-existence of God. But that’s only true for RLP, not at all true for me.
RLP’s aims to empathize with people who have doubts. The problem is that it fails with people like me. I am not at all convinced that RLP has had the same kind of doubts I have had. Because the doubts I have had are not bleak. I did not want to believe in God anymore than I wanted not to.
I suppose it just gets back to the fact that I’m not RLP’s target audience.
21 gerhard // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:52 am
err, I don’t see it as that. The way i view history is that in history man has always tended towards unification.
take how monotheistic religions destroyed our diverse cultures, paganism as such wasn’t some unified religion, its a term we give a whole bunch of diverse religions. hence Egyptian paganism and celtic paganism being worlds apart. It’s an accepted fact that Constantine converted the roman empire not because of his own belief in the christain god but rather because christain warriors lasted longer and were less likely to fight each other. Just think about it in these terms of, lots and lots of pagan diversity means lots and lots of diversity in terms of what people find moral and what people will fight over.
So his adoption of christ had more to do with control and management of roman society than it did with spirituality.
Modernism could be described as the experimentation and fragmentation of the human experience, characterized by deviations from the norms of society.^ wiki .
so as far as i remember , esp from art class, modernism was a response to established traditional culture, it was an attemto of man freeing himself from the group behaviour and experimenting around. us moving on.
So , like, the exact opposite to what you’re saying. It was/is about diversification.
The only real issue people have generally with modernism is the belief that traditionalism is mind rott. that instead of following it , one shoudl create something new from it. to quote nemo , ‘just keep moving just keep moving’
this is where post-modernism’s anything goes attitude comes in . It rejects the notion that tradional life and progress are seperate.
Which i kind of disagree with , its sort of saying that one can conserve and change at the same time which makes it irrational, but that is essentially what marx said about this.
22 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:54 am
Hectic. I went to bed at like midnight and I wake up to so much material. I like it.
I agree. What I meant was that my question about “who created God?” might be frivolous. Something you have sorted out for yourself long ago and don’t feel like reiterating here. If you got it like that I’m good. About being over cautious, I think we all want to avoid what happened in that “other” thread. I can see it is affecting the way we post already.
Also, I am just a fledgling here. Responses like
That is greek to me. I don’t really know what that means in context with what I said. And I like it. I now have to go wiki for a while to figure out what Ben was trying to say to me
True, but I can’t help this. It’s the way my mind tries to make sense of things
I am glad to hear you say this.
I am sure I can find a few, but who are they to label? I agree with you with regards to labels, don’t like them. The world is not that black and white. I can’t even label myself, how is someone else supposed to.
23 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:56 am
…uugh, I forgot a end blockquote at
Please fix and delete my request here
24 Ben-Jammin' // Dec 3, 2008 at 11:07 am
Those two magic words, ‘free will.’ The last discussion I got involved with on that topic lasted 4 months. I’d like to avoid a repeat.
25 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 11:26 am
Oh, that settles it then. I really thought that I am just plain stupid in not understanding that reply.I have been reading this blog on and off for a long time, but I must have missed that one.
26 saneman // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:26 pm
With so many uniquely different religions all over the world, you would think that people would have figured out that the human condition of yearning for understanding and meaning is universal one as apposed to there actually being one true universal god.
Would it not be more productive and positive to embrace the diversity and allow people to pick and choose(oh how we love to do this) bits and pieces of different religions, stories, myths that maybe help explain and guide them through there life.
Also we should bear in mind that maybe some people have no need for these aids/crutches and should never have to explain themselves when there life choices don’t hurt or influence any other’s negatively.
RPL seems to me more of an explanation of why a person should conform to social norms instead of how this specific religion could help in ones life.
This “itch”, could it not also be filled with a simple hobby and/or any religion? Why does geographical location have to come into it?
“Looking for the Good in Everything” should mean just that even other religions(which also included satanism).
27 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I really to understand that part. Maybe I just don’t get it. Are you saying that RLP does not get it, but you don’t what to point fingers so you generalize? Or is this just a statement in general?
You seem to compare these two things but I don’t see what the one has to do with the other. Are you saying that there can be more than one God/Creator OR none? Surely there has to be something that caused us to exist in space and time, even if I go as far as to say that a quantum fluctuation could be our one true universal “god/creator”?
Help me out here I struggle.
28 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Hmm…no, not necessarily. Depends what you mean by “cause”. And also, “god/creator”. It’s possible that the universe goes through a constant Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle, which would render the need for a “cause” meaningless. Although, from what I hear, this particular hypothesis is looking more unlikely these days.
Remember, the “cause”that created us also “caused” tapeworms, bacteria, birds of paradise, Venus flytraps, Betelgeuse, sedimentary rock, gravity, the K-T extinction event, Mars, the Lesser Magellanic Cloud and George W. Bush, in no particular order. Doesn’t make us particularly special. If we need to consider a cause, it needs to explain the creation of all these other various phenomena as well.
29 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I hope so… I am sure someone is pointing their little detectors into the sky and will warn us if suddenly we just see blue shifted radiation everywhere. That was just a joke. Surely something had to start the cycle though? I am getting an increasing feeling that pursuing these kind of questions are a waste of time. Maybe we are not capable of understanding, because for example our minds are stuck on causality.
30 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm
No. Again, it depends very much on what you mean by “start”. But in the context of an endless expansion/contraction cycle, there is no need for an absolute beginning. Or ending, for that matter.
Quite possible.
Shouldn’t stop us trying, though…
31 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Damn italics tags!
32 saneman // Dec 3, 2008 at 8:03 pm
@Werner:
I was addressing human credulity and how no one has thought about the fact that they cant all be right but, they can all be wrong.
About there having to be a first cause is a bit pointless as you can always then ask: what caused that.
The “first cause” that put in motion all the struggle, pain and suffering(fossil record) that got us to the “here and now” hopefully isn’t an all knowing creator.
Man created god in his own image in an attempt to understand his place in the universe, it was one of our first attempts. It will always be dear to us as it is part of what makes up our history and development as humans, but now in 2008 we have many different scientific theories explaining how we got here. What we should do in the “here and now” is not a question for the “first cause” it is something we should be asking each other and trying to figure out what is best for us and our personal selves and the generations to come.
.
33 Werner // Dec 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Aah, I understand you know.
I can see why you would say something like this. After reading up on that other Cambodia post and the absolute horror that these people went through… does not make it easy to believe humanity is loved at all. Some tough stuff came out of that post.
34 Hugo // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm
@Ben: in my opinion, the whole idea is indeed all projection yes. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it is not testable, and there are alternative hypotheses that are also quite likely. If I were bored with my fellow humans, or didn’t have friends, I’d find it interesting to create self-aware life and see how it performs. Meh/Lah Reloaded touched on this, I think. Meh/Lah Revolutions is half-way written, doesn’t really deal with it, but starts with the telescoping idea and discusses its problems. Now if I can only make time to finish it!
Thin ice? We’re absolutely in speculative ponderings. Wondering what we would be like as “gods” when we create, and projecting that idea up. Which is why I’ve heard theologians suggest “God is the mirror with which we view ourselves”. Our concept of “God” then, for the theistic people among us, is a projection of our own beliefs about how life should be lived. The “horrific” understanding of “God” presented in some of the older books therefore represent the tribe’s own ways of living in this world, and the evolving God concept to one that is “a God of love and compassion” is a point where humans realise that love and compassion is most important. Now if they could only *own* it.
And most Christians’ “God” is pretty judgemental and hateful, indeed. So I suggest in terms of projection, good atheists have a much nicer “God” than Christians. Because they’ve stopped looking for God in all the wrong places.
M’kay, too much talk about God, God-obsessed language, like George Maru said. “Something inside…”
Your comment was great, positive, friendly. A good disagreement. The above is how I see it, and I don’t expect others to see it the same way. (Though I wish some people would: the judgemental-type fundie Christians, especially. And they’re who this blog is dedicated to. Will take me another year to really reach out to them though.)
Hallelujah!
Modern epistemology: *YES*. “Modern” culture and ideals/attitudes, as represented by e.g. the Borg in Star Trek, in colonialism, and in World War II type attitudes, that’s what I have a problem with. Evolving Thoughts had a post on “anti-modernism” being the big problem, the big threat, but post-modern culture is fine, as long as it doesn’t turn into anti-modernism. Co-existence of diversity, NB. Like genetic diversity.
@miller, I hear ya. I think the theistic path in life is one of a lot of grappling, due to a particular way of viewing and describing their “meaning in life”. It’s too dependent on the external-creator, rather than focused on creativity, an “omnipresent” concept.
If you are flexible enough in language/semantics/definitions. But that’s a path many people choose, the way they view things. I can but offer alternatives, choices.
@gerhard, I do have some issues with the romanisation of Christianity. Institutionalised, it started becoming the new Empire, while early Christianity and their conception of their messiah was about defending the outsider and standing up against the oppression of empire.
That said, humanity not divided against itself is a useful step forward, in which light a loving not-fighting-each-other is a step forward, and the Christian mythos is a “step forward”. In some forms. The horrors committed in its name is a “step backwards”, and again a case of insiders wanting to convert the rest to their inside, rather than starting on defending the outsider. (I’m thinking of crusades.)
I’ll have to look into your comments some other time. (I’ve read them and take note, and will revise my notions as needed when I have the time.) I base my understanding of modern culture on philosophy class, and do not yet have a grasp of the interplay between movements in literature, art, poetry, music and culture.
@werner: “I like me and Ben’s little dialog”. Cool! Then if you can cautiously proceed, respectfully and friendly, and cautious of hijackers, I should not project my own frustrations onto your discussion/debate. Be careful, have fun.
To touch on free will (uh oh): I think there’s two ways of viewing it, from the perspective of the experiences of the person experiencing “free will”, and from an outside perspective (which might be mechanistic, or have some trickiness in terms of whether creator-allowed-free-will). I boil them down to this division, with those arguing about creator-allows-free-will really being about the experience of free will. And that’s all I have to say about that.
(The rest bores me, because my perspective satisfies me as a way of viewing other people’s viewpoints and debates. The rest does seem like just semantics to me.)
@saneman: AMEN! Yea, excellent! We’re in agreement, except for the RLP comment. I see RLP in a tradition that he likes and finds value in, and he’s keen to help others that are interested in experiencing that tradition, that want to scratch their itch in that way. Hobbies, sport, many other things to scratch that itch: sure. I tried to find these connections in posts earlier this year, talking about Tribal Gods and God-as-meaning-assigner, etc. You’ll notice I’m coming from a theological/Christian-mythos angle. That’s what I do. That’s what I offer. (I need not explain it. Though I have tried.
)
/me cringes a little in fear @ werner’s comment to saneman (not at the comment, but where it might go, how it might be handled). But I should have faith…
(in humanity). Let’s see.
My response to the thoughts raised:
There is one true universal human condition of yearning for understanding and meaning. “God”, in other words. Though using theistic language horrifies some. That’s what Christians call it, I’d say. And when Christians “recognise God in someone else”, it’s related to that. Can’t atheists rather connect to this and say “yes, yes, I get it! That’s true… except I don’t connect that to ‘creator of the universe’, for that question I’m not going to ask – I find it to be recursive and pointless”. Scope for both to connect on a certain human truth, and communicate their differences within the positive connection of this truth.
Hope that’s ok.
Cool @Kenneth.
@werner:
Questions of original cause? Yea, they’re something of a waste of time, if taken any more seriously than idle fireside ponderings and appreciation and wonder at our mere *existence*. That should be enough, I think? Find “God” in our very remarkable existence or the abstract general creative process, and leave “original-cause” infinite regression out of it.
Doh, this is what Meh/Lah Revolutions will be about. *Must finish that post!*
Bingo. We’re in this. We’re in it together. We’re not outside, we can’t even know if there’s an “outside”. What sense is there in asking then? In taking a bite of that apple in the garden of Eden? Ponder, bemuse, stand in awe at that remarkable tree, but leave it be?
Sorry, yes @Kenneth as well. We can try, but shouldn’t take too “seriously” anything beyond that which we can actually investigate. Like such: “God has given us our senses with which to explore the Garden of Eden. That is what we have, that is what we’ve been granted. That apple-that-is-beyond is not in our grasp, is not for us.”
@Kenneth and tags: can’t wait until we’re all using ReStructuredText. I swear it is easier, once you get the hang of it. (Mengelmoes uses it currently.)
@saneman, I’m happy with that as well, though I would personally substitute “the god of the philosophers” for your mention of “god”.
@werner and Cambodia: what humanity is capable of is darn scary. And what we have is each other, and what we can do for each other. We can live out love towards one another. That’s what certain pieces of theology are about, about how to live the divine “Godly” life: we are to live out God’s Love. For we’re “God’s hands and feet” to help each other out.
Sitting back and expecting God to break the laws of nature to do this, doesn’t quite work. Doesn’t happen. I believe it is up to us to help “make his kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven”. The latter is in another “realm”, the realm of ideals and imagination and how things may be, the realm of the Greek Pantheon on Mt. Olympus, (which was quite the soap opera though). We can “look at it”, talk about it, contemplate what it means about how we should live, and then we can choose: “do we commit to that notion of the divine, or do we continue with bigotry and intolerance and hate?”
It’s no secret that I have serious issues with Shofar’s teachings that leads to shunning homosexuals, but that should be easy to understand, seeing as I believe, based on studies, that it isn’t a choice. It’s nature. But that’s just describing how I feel about it, this is *not* the place for *that* debate. Let’s not derail into why the Bible says what it says, and the various interpretations that exist.
BTW, a Dawkins article I liked, touches on something I mentioned above:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1767506.ece
“God”… in other words
I loved this article, and also shared it some time ago.
God I fucking love this thread.
Sorry, I had to let that out. My ugly swearing was just too ugly, and somehow I feel this softens up the word again for me. That word-with-a-thousand-meanings.
If threads continue like this, I’ll get over my obsessive-compulsion to have to reply to nearly-every-comment! Yay!
35 Grizzly // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I like the way RLP speaks outright about issues a lot of people (including christians) struggle with on a daily basis.
To be honest if i do meet a christian that is not challenged by these thoughts every now and then, i would seriously doubt their honesty. Although, for many christians venturing into the murky waters of “Does God exist? is close to blashempy.
Hence the fact that many christians just ignore these nagging questions and are not really interested in debating or even contemplating these almost “basic” human questions. They feel like traitors to their relgious doctorine if these type of questions are put on the table for debate.
I think God created us with an inherent human curiosty to explore and try and understand things. Even though the concept of “God” may be to alien for our minds to ever comprehend, i still think that debating such issues is healthy for christians.
36 Hugo // Dec 4, 2008 at 12:01 am
Indeed! Thanks for stopping by, Grizzly. Welcome to our corner of madness on the internet.
In the light of:
and:
addressing the rest of my regulars here:
That’s what I want then, a place where everyone can have some healthy thoughts/discussions/”debates” (I fear the “debate” word because “debates” turn so ugly). The best way to encourage that kind of thing, is to commit to trying to not convert anyone. We’re here for open and interesting discussion. In Christian evangelism, there’s the wisdom of “only God can convert someone”. On the flip-side, be happy with “only truth can”, it is out of our hands. It shouldn’t be up to us. If truth speaks and is worth following, we need not tell anyone what they must believe or think. We can just discuss things.
So I live with some kind of fear of actually converting anyone from anything to anything else. I don’t want to do it. With this attitude, I can engage in many more conversations, with many more people, without them feeling that they’re venturing into murky and dangerous waters.
So many Christians avoid thinking about it completely. Now my understanding of the concepts, my language use, is maybe out of the ordinary, I don’t know. But if I can present a possible way of thinking about these things, by virtue of non-traditional definitions, I’m hoping we can gain much more openness and frankess about what people do and do not believe, without them having to feel they’re giving up on their morality and way of life. If someone’s way of life is expressed in theistic language, then I’ll attempt to build bridges towards theistic language, another way of talking about what I call “the divine”. Agreement is not important, encouraging open conversation and personal honesty is, and whatever I can do to encourage that, I will do it.
So that’s my honesty then… I don’t know how “intellectual” it is.
Thanks for giving me something to bounce off Grizzly. Apologies for using it to help talk to my long-time readers in trying to encourage some more friendly and open behaviour. Which I’ve been dumbfounded at how lovely it’s been! Yay!
I really hope it lasts!
37 Werner // Dec 4, 2008 at 12:11 am
Really? I read this somewhere that I think might have something to do with it
“The aim is not to start a debate, the aim is to foster a positive exchange of honest thoughts and ideas, to have a friendly fireside chat with a couple of friends, while we watch the last few flames lick the air, the moon peeking through the clouds, moments before we all crawl into our sleeping bags to listen to the sounds of the night. What do you think?“
38 Hugo // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:25 am
Wow, like in, people actually read the post before they climb into debate?! I’m dumbfounded another time! *grin*. Good good.
Anyway, this is the method of conversation with which I can then explore in the direction I want to take this blog. And that’s to talk about the things that are really troubling me about fundamentalism and e.g. Shofar doctrine. It’ll take me a while to get there, but with this approach, open dialogue might be possible. It’ll probably be a whole ‘nother challenge when we get into touchy subjects and strong disagreements.
I just know that back in my days, when I needed someone to be impartial, I was too afraid to look at arguments “against my belief”, and avoided them, because I *knew* my belief wasn’t strong enough to handle it. It was only once I had found the… um… “good guys” and their arguments, that I felt right, now I have some of *for* arguments, now I can actually look at the “against” ones and think about them. I wish that wasn’t necessary. It prolonged the anguish. So I’m setting out to provide the kind of resource that I needed to help me think about things, back in the day when I was still in way too deep. Which is why I feel about my own approach: NB: no attempts to convert in any which way. That intention rules all, and frightened me away back in the day.
This goes for any kind of evangelism in any kind of direction. Here’s one about emergent and relationships:
http://mycontemplations.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/stop-marketing-the-church/
Forget about what the evangelism is about in that post, if it’s something you have issues with. Focus only on the two things it really talks about: marketing and relationships. And how marketing something, some idea, some whatever, “evangelising”, tends to destroy the possibility of building a relationship. And relationships are what people need, especially when their view of the world gets shaken up a bit. Some people they can walk the path through life with, not necessarily in agreement, but in mutual understanding at least.
Amen.
39 Hugo // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:03 am
Oh, getting back to the original topic of this post then:
I was a little surprised no-one mentioned the praying! Notice in this post they’re talking about praying as an interesting (potentially “useful”) ritual, not as a “vending machine” for divine intervention. Prayer of various kinds and forms really seem to have use to the human psyche. I believe I have at least one “post-theistic friend” that prays, finding it a useful discipline, despite him “knowing” (strongly believing to be factually correct) there isn’t a divinely-intervening entity that will respond supernaturally.
Maybe he’s wrong, maybe he’s missing out, but the point is he’s found a way to have the “benefits” (in his experience, for him) of praying, without having to believe in the “supernatural”. (Whatever that is, some of us had all sorts of trouble trying to figure out how to define “supernatural”, and kinda failed, due to science-based thinking. :-/ )
40 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 4, 2008 at 9:02 am
@saneman
Bit of a blanket statement there, don’t you think?
41 saneman // Dec 4, 2008 at 11:14 am
@ken
this is what annoys me and maybe keeps us going in circles, I/anyone makes a statement, blanket or otherwise or what ever and what happens?
stuff the actual point, no one addresses it, but every one jumps on the bandwagon about style, rudeness, who it could or could not be addressing.
This then causes people to have to repeat themselves till the point of getting cold and logical(always taken as rude) so as to force people to address the point.
Maybe I’m in the wrong place here, cos no one seems to be address the huge gaping hole, being THE COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR A GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
again I mention we have all these real theories based on evidence and logic but they are tossed aside for mom and pop’s fairy tale.
I don’t want to go down the shouting match road again just because people don’t want to look in the mirror and understand where this “itch” is really coming from.
“Looking for the good in everything” is an awesome idea, but not if its only displaying half a sentence.
“Looking for the good in everything that my mom and dad forced me to belief in when I was a credulous child”
again trying to help facilitate understanding not trying to be rude(I shouldn’t have to state this)
42 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 4, 2008 at 11:23 am
@saneman
I’m not criticising your rudeness here at all! In fact, you’ve been very polite on this thread. It is your statement that I don’t agree with. For one thing, it is the default position in science that we can be wrong.
For what it’s worth, I’m a pedant. I like details. So blanket statements like yours are almost guaranteed to bring me out of the woodwork
.
I’m not taking you on about your style here. I’m taking you on about your statement…
43 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 4, 2008 at 11:28 am
@saneman again.
Sorry, I just reread my post, and, ironically, the second sentence came out ruder than I intended. Apologies.
44 saneman // Dec 4, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@ken
so what do you disagree with in my statement?
i understand :
the best part about the scientific method is that a theory is never really fact or true, it just hasn’t been proved wrong yet and as more evidence supports the theory so the theory gains traction. The continues re-assessment(i think someone pointed out that this might keep us standing still but that is just wrong) is what keeps us ahead of the pack, but only when new evidence is introduced.
I just think dragging around superstitious ideas and trying to square the circle is time wasting. Wanting something to make sense doesn’t make it any more sensible.
I understand that most of the topics here are being driven from a Christian world view. But then what good is that really when the word “Christian can be replaced with any myth/religion and it would still make sense and people would talk about it.
I mean either we approach topics from an earthly view or from a star trek or robin hood view
45 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@saneman
It’s too universal. Too black and white. Too definite. You probably don’t hold to the statement as it stands (i.e. NO-ONE has thought etc. etc.), but what can I say, I am pedantic.
Because Christianity has a lot going for it! Bear with me on this one. There are many aspects of Christianity that would be upheld as moral in any society, and that should be applauded. To me, what is important about this blog is showing that these morals are not unique to Christianity. It also helps to show which aspects of Christianity are immoral. And all in a non-confrontational (well, mostly
), Christian-friendly environment.
I think that’s the most I’ve ever typed the word Christianity in one paragraph…
46 saneman // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
@ken:
), LOTR-friendly environment.
Because LOTR has a lot going for it! Bear with me on this one. There are many aspects of LOTR that would be upheld as moral in any society, and that should be applauded. To me, what is important about this blog is showing that these morals are not unique to LOTR. It also helps to show which aspects of LOTR are immoral. And all in a non-confrontational (well, mostly
I think that’s the most I’ve ever typed the word LOTR in one paragraph…
Because ISLAM has a lot going for it! Bear with me on this one. There are many aspects of ISLAM that would be upheld as moral in any society, and that should be applauded. To me, what is important about this blog is showing that these morals are not unique to ISLAM. It also helps to show which aspects of ISLAM are immoral. And all in a non-confrontational (well, mostly
), ISLAM-friendly environment.
I think that’s the most I’ve ever typed the word ISLAM in one paragraph…
why keep beating the Christianity drum, surely we need to move forward and just like each religion has borrowed from the previous and dropped bits accordingly why invite confusion and fluff into a guide for life that so many are forced / enticed into(RLP)
47 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Firstly, LotR is not a religion.
Secondly, way to emphasise my point! I am certain that there are aspects to Islam that are commendable. This should be emphasised! But the crappy aspects also need to be highlighted, which Islam is notoriously bad at doing. So is Christianity. So are many other religions.
I’m not saying that Christianity is the only religion that has moral aspects to it. But a substantial portion, maybe even a majority, of the target audience of this blog are Christian. It is aimed at Christians. So you are missing the very point of the blog if you’re complaining about beating the Christianity drum.
48 saneman // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:55 pm
@ken
LOTR is a religion!!! anything can a be religion.
people can believe what ever they want, thats what makes this all so ridiculous. You just missed my point completely and highlighted exactly what is wrong here, if all this blog is meant for is to coax people into the Zombie cult then say that. Lets call a spade a spade instead of all pretending to philosophize about which of the zombie’s sermons where the best and how the other “silly” religions are obviously more flawed than the one our parents forced on us.
no wonder some comments are met with reactions of “offensive” and “rude” thats because no one likes the spell to be broken when we are all playing “make believe” with tin foil hats on waxing lyrical about our favorite myth.
Surely those of us who can help, should be trying to steer people away from specific bronze age myths and towards a better clearer understanding of the world. NOT THE OPPOSITE.
49 saneman // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm
yes sure talk about the good parts of Christianity and take them away with you, but don’t draw people towards it.
50 Hugo // Dec 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Dear God saneman, you’re obtuse! Please no-one respond to saneman when he pulls in his favourite subject unasked. No LOTR, no discussions on “God does not exist”. He’s being a troll, he doesn’t understand this blog, he doesn’t understand this community or why or for what it exists, or how it seeks to do good. saneman, I’ll try to explain more clearly eventually, but for now, suffices to say your comments aren’t helping. Please be patient until you understand.
If you understand Afrikaans, here’s an example of what’s wrong with LOTR, and why Christianity is therefore better than LOTR, *irrespective* of factuality:
http://piesangverkoper.co.za/?p=42
If you’d like to practise patience, you’re welcome to hang around long enough to understand what this is blog is about. Or to go read the archives, there are many posts about what “God” means to people, in an attempt to explain why it’s not simply a matter of “God doesn’t exist” – because the philosophers’ definition of God is not what God means to people, it’s not what God is.
My “Commenting Policy version 0.8″ post is on its way: if I don’t get paged, it should be published before I go to bed. The “Does God Exist?” question on this thread is now declared off-topic. If it was as simple as you would have us believe, then no-one would believe in God. (In your language then… in your worldview, point out that it is a matter of *psychology* rather than a matter of *plain and simple evidence*. And that’s the point.) This is both your first and your final warning on this topic. I reserve the right to remove spam, i.e. off-topic comments.
You may respond to thoughts in this comment, if you stick to only the thoughts in this comment. Don’t bring other stuff into it, or I declare it off topic.
For the rest: if saneman touches on his favourite topic when that’s not what we’re busy discussing, he’s a troll. Do not feed the troll, i.e. do not respond to his comments. And everyone remind each other of this, it would be great if you guys can remind me as well, because I suck at it. I love giving food to trolls. DNFTT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In fact, I’m removing some of the silly repetitiveness already. And it is not censorship, as the commenting policy will explain shortly: saneman, you can create a blog at wordpress.com – there you can write whatever you want and build up your own audience. And if you link to posts of mine, the link will appear in the comment thread as a “pingback”. I will never delete legitimate pingbacks.
51 Hugo // Dec 4, 2008 at 11:13 pm
@Kenneth and everyone:
Indeed. My suggestion is this:
You find the best, you find the things you can and do agree with, and you agree with them in the post positive way possible. You can make a big statement by precisely explaining which parts you do agree with. You can then point out how you achieve or maintain those good bits, from your worldview, and then thereby mention which bits you exclude and don’t like. Focus on the good.
Many of my past posts aimed to equip us with the kinds of things we can connect with, where we can agree, how we handle it. Please reread my comments above, and try to commit to not forcing anyone into anything. Forcing your genes on someone is ugly… forcing your memes into someone’s head is also ugly. It scars. If you have so little faith in “truth” that you don’t think it can prevail, you’re an “unbeliever”. An unbeliever in the power of reason and truth.
And I’m a believer, absolutely. And from what I’ve heard of Kenneth’s explanation of his trust in the power of explaining science compassionately and with understanding and sensitivity, Kenneth’s a believer too.
(Sorry if I made you cringe Kenneth. Feel free to respond and explain in a positive way how you might agree that you “believe”, what you “believe” in, and then come down hard with a tonne of bricks on how you don’t want that statement of mine to be taken incorrectly, or why you hate that statement even. As long as you first provide a positive and friendly route forward, I will let you get away with more.)
saneman, sorry man, but even if you mean LOTR positively, it just comes across as ridicule. I know it’s tough to make it sound positive. But I also stand by the link above in arguing that LOTR is a bad narrative with which to paint reality. You’re welcome to disagree with this, but I insist that you first read the thing I linked to… drats, it’s Afrikaans, maybe you can ask someone to translate the main points… then indicate that you do understand in which ways LOTR is bad, or is said to be bad by us, *then*, *after* you have demonstrated your ability to empathise with that sentiment, you may throw your tonne of bricks about why the sentiment is mistaken and LOTR’s narrative is in fact good, despite that bad.
OK, do I do that with Christianity? Hmmm… I don’t say “Christianity is good”. I don’t think I’ve said that in a very long time, at least I try not to. It has too much baggage. Elements of Christianity are good. Or that which I follow, I consider good. I don’t personally much care if it is called “Christianity” or not, labels.
Sorry, what you can point out, is this:
“C’mon Hugo, revisit that statement. You know that’s taking a leap already. Granted, there’s something wrong with LOTR, but wanting to say Christianity is therefore better is a bad leap.”
I’d agree: “ok, yes, you’re right. Let me rephrase, what I meant was *this*.” And we have an exchange that explodes. But add to your disagreement the following positive alternative explanation:
“I can see what you mean, can see in which ways LOTR is bad, and I can see how some elements of Christianity can be considered better when viewed in terms of that single isolated point, but beyond that, you’re being too broad.”
Then I can simply agree. And it doesn’t become a debate. Give the other side a positive compromising way out, and it need not be horrible.
OK, enough from me. Heading home, writing the commenting policy post, and cleaning in preparation for my cupboard delivery tomorrow.
I’ve restored the comment of saneman that I filtered out, for the curious to read. Please no-one respond to it though. It starts with “@ken: LOTR is a religion!!! anything can a be religion.” and the appropriate response is “but then anything can be God as well, including something that is considered to exist.” We’ve been over that topic as well, and we will get back to it, so let’s not waste time here. It is off-topic here. Even this would be better:
http://thinktoomuch.net/2008/04/29/on-gods-existence-and-non-existence/
saneman, please read that link. It is in English.
Darn, and that’s why I want to remove troll-bait, because I’m already responding to it. That’s why I ask you guys to do me a big favour and tell me, remind me, to not feed trolls.
52 saneman // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:14 am
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
oh well I tried, you cant square the circle not even mother teresa could.
enough swing ball
53 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 5, 2008 at 10:00 am
OK. saneman. I will respond one last time. It is clear that you and I just do not see eye to eye on this.
You can argue this. This doesn’t make it true. “can” doesn’t make “is”. The day you present me with with people who whole-heartedly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who preach in its name, tithe in its name, build churches in its name, and convert non-believers and slay infidels in its name, then you might have a case. And I use this example purposefully.
You know, it truly amazes me how often you make points, such as the above, that I fully agree with:
…and then head off into some insane comment like this.
Do you see any proselytising on this blog?
Seriously, do you see anyone trying to convince anyone else to take up Christianity? And before you say this thread is a prime example, look at the first four commenters. Look at the rest of the blog, which is what people have been telling you to do ever since this whole debacle started. I have never experienced even the slightest hint of pressure to convert on this blog. Not once. You are the one missing the point if you believe this is a closet conversion machine.
Stop doing this Seriously. Let people determine which of the zombie’s sermons are the best. Let them decide for themselves which aspects are moral. Let them see other people’s viewpoints. How is this not a good thing? You seem to be arguing that religion should be abandoned wholesale, immediately, lock, stock and barrel. If so, do you honestly live on the same planet as us, if you feel that this is achievable?
Absolute bullshit. In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t have a myth. I am mythless. And I know for a fact I’m not the only mythless one who is a regular on this blog. If I see a negative aspect of religion in a post that no-one has yet addressed, you can count on it I will present it. What I will not do is present my point in a way that will automatically antagonise most of the people who will read it. Which, despite your many (to me) excellent points, you have done. So don’t tell me I am playing make believe. It isn’t true.
It seems you want to deconvert everyone, everywhere, by the fire of rationality and the sword of logic. What makes you think your way of doing this is the only way? People come to irreligion through many paths, and I can guarantee you that logic isn’t the only one. Stop trying to tell everyone that it is.
54 saneman // Dec 5, 2008 at 10:29 am
this Honeypot is not the place for logical discussion, and when did the pen turn into the sword?
hehe anyways
peace out faith heads and apologists
55 gerhard // Dec 5, 2008 at 10:43 am
suggestion or demand? either way i think you’re right , lets not focus on the bad stuff. Lets stick our heads into the sand and pretend all is fine is la la land so we can discuss meaninglessly what is right . you know hitler (sorry , godwin) also had it right , i mean, christ just look at what the cost of war brought us: highways, vw , bmw ,fanta , anti-propaganda propaganda , Israel , the domination of the Palestinian people who’ve lost their land …you’re right with so much good , why should we discuss or focus the bad, millions of people’s suffering just isn’t worth the price of other peoples disagreeable opinions who destroy the positive and friendly route forward
lets just all walk hand in hand together …
*sarcsm*
*sigh* this is because you recognize the absurdity in it. He is trying to hand you a mirror. … i think saneman would gladly drop the lotr argument if there was a argument to drop it. (he’s already done this once or twice on the blog which i think you’ve failed to notice)
that is the difference i think in thinking, he’s willing to discuss this and if your point is decent then he’d come over to your side. All he wants is reason to do so. He keeps getting back to the same point , which is great, awesome fantastic and good, because he hasn’t managed to get past them.
get past the point and you get princess fiffypants.
But you’re right, lets focus on the good. lets understand why the sweet is sweet and not why the bad is bad hence not giving context to the sweet. *droole* i feel like a lunch bar now.
56 Rinus // Jan 8, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I found this comment VERY interesting and sort of a light bulb moment for me. I can definitely identify with your friend, although I suspect this comment wasn’t directed at someone like me
I probably messed the tags up horribly, so please fix it if need be.
57 Bad Ben // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Woo hoo.
It’s been a while. Good to be back!
@Hugo: Some of your earlier posts really warm my (post?) fundie heart. It’s awesome to know that a shofarianite like myself is not hated enough to be COMPLETELY discredited in a stimulating and provocative blog like this!
Recently read 2 McLaren books which reignited that naughty little flame of curiosity in me, and you know; I couldn’t think of a better place to come/go (this interwebz iz confuzing) than your blog.
PS. Gerhard made some interesting points about the counter-cultural origin of the Positivistic Modernism both me and you seem to be accustomed to, which I feel should be sufficiently explored! Juicy bits!
PPS. Still on shofar’s payroll! yay!
58 Hugo // Jan 16, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Bad Ben, I’m glad you’re back.
I’d love to know which posts you really like, what you read (book-wise) and what you felt about it, and most importantly, to develop and encourage an environment where you will also feel there is an opportunity for open and friendly cross-worldview discussions. I’m *still* working on getting the software in place that would help foster that kind of community. It feels within my grasp these days, but I’m also on a payroll. That certainly takes its toll.
Also: hopefully I can give everyone the opportunity to steer some of the conversation, so that we can have some Shofar-steered conversations, some atheist-steered ones, etc etc.
Anyway, just a quick “hi, welcome back!” response from me. Now I’m off to lunch. This weekend will unfortunately (for my blog) be rather full with real-life activity.
Leave a Comment