[SynchroBlog] September 17th Synchroblog

[igneousquill at gmail.com]

I agree with Matt and am impressed with how he put it.

It seems there's a difference of opinion as to what an "interfaith"
synchroblog would entail.  Apparently the two options on the table are
either a group of bloggers from different religious perspectives
writing about interfaith issues or a group of religiously diverse
bloggers writing from their unique perspectives about a common topic
that might or might not be regarding how religions relate to each
other.

Personally, I prefer the latter and suspect the former would be prone
to rancor or else simply become tiresome after a while.

Adam G.

On 9/4/08, matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au <matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Phil
>
> Well, in terms of the conversations being about "faith", I would argue that
> is a very Christocentric assumption to begin with. Few traditions emphasize
> "faith" as much as Christianity. Judaism and "Pure Land" Buddhism and
> certain strands of "Bhakti" Hinduism come to mind, but not too many others.
> So the very language of "interfaith" is something I find highly problematic.
> I have never done the research but I am willing to bet money that the term
> "interfaith" originated out of a country that was historically influenced by
> Christendom. Suffice is to say, i don't think that "faith" language is an
> issue just for Atheists.
>
> Now just to clarify, lest I be misheard, I am not arguing that Atheists
> should have a priveleged role in the conversation either, much as they would
> like to assume that one is owed to them. I do not think we should "seriously
> pursue" their concerns over and above other concerns. All I would suggest is
> we be open to offering them a seat at one very large and very round table.
> To be honest I am really keen to see how cope in an open dialogue with
> Buddhists. I note that Dawkins, Harris and co. tend to flounder like gulping
> fish when forced to speak about Buddhism as a religion, when forced to
> engage pantheists as well as monotheists. To be honest I half expect
> Atheists to self-exclude themselves from so open and pluralistic a
> discussion.
>
> So yes, lets take care to define it well. It is not about theism vs atheism.
> Its more about (to be a little but cheeky here) inviting all theisms -
> monotheisms, pantheisms, atheisms and polytheisms - to converse over a broad
> range of topics in an atmosophere of mutual respect towards mutual
> understanding.
>
> As for what topics, I think why do people suffer could be one worth starting
> with.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>> Phil Wyman <pastorphil at salemgathering.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Matt,
>>
>> I have spoken with Hemant from Friendly Athiest, and we've shot e-
>> mails back and forth a number of times - seemingly great guy.
>>
>> Apart from this point, here's my disagreement with the inclusion of
>> atheism into and inter"faith" dialog.  The assumption of the dialog
>> is that it is about faith.  If the inclusion of a Sam Harris type of
>> atheist (note today's post on Friendly Atheist is about Sam
>> Harris) ;-) brings the dialog to simple God vs. no god discussion in
>> the post replies it has not become interfaith at all.  I think there
>> is a place for blogs on the importance of our of worldviews in human
>> interaction under another banner than inter"faith".
>>
>> I am not thinking of this as exclusionary to atheists, merely as
>> being well defined.  If atheists want to be included in the dialog
>> that's fine as long as there is an understanding that it is
>> inter"faith" - a compilation of faith writings.  Thus no one is
>> excluded.  But a serious pursuit of increasing atheist writings is
>> best left for another SynchroBlog.  This is no different than the
>> recent question of whether Neo-Pagan writings belonged in the
>> original Christian SynchroBlog list.
>>
>> That's my thoughts, ;-)
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2008, at 6:13 PM, matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Adam and would very much argue for the inclusion of
>> > atheists ... provided they agree to some basic ground rules. I have
>> > long been of the opinion that we play into atheist hands when we
>> > treat them as a special belief system. If we exclude them that is
>> > precisely what we would be doing. Why not have some fun and see how
>> > they handle a level playing field? It would be sure to stimulare
>> > conversation. We just need to find the sort that can hold their
>> > tempers. I do have one atheist blogger in mind who seems to be able
>> > to manage that - http://friendlyatheist.com. He's the eBay Atheist
>> > that generated some global comment some time back. Admittedly some
>> > of th people who comment on his site are angry but I have found
>> > that he himself has some aptitude for interfaith.
>> >
>> > The basic ground rule I insist on in interfaith is "respect for
>> > others". That does not preclude disagreement, or even criticism
>> > (Erin I actually disagree with you there, if we're uncritical and
>> > only emphasize the positives it can get wishy washy real quick)
>> > just flaming and vilification and disrespectful attitudes. I have
>> > been doing it for years with Pagans and Satanists and all sorts and
>> > I find it works. You do have to be prepared to bump people who fail
>> > to master the art of respectful disagreement though. So i think we
>> > would need to set up a three strike clause or something.
>> >
>> > Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> SynchroBlog mailing list
> SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
> http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org
>


-- 
Adam G.
http://igneousquill.blogspot.com