[SynchroBlog] Junk E-Mail Re: September 17th Synchroblog

Thu Sep 4 16:35:46 BST 2008

Hey Beth,

That's a cool idea.

Phil

On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Beth Patterson wrote:

> This is a fascinating dialogue, all of it’s own.
>
> What if the lead off blog was an amalgamation of the discussion  
> (Phil…)?
>
> There’s great juice here—and a lot of light (as well as heat), Adam!
>
> Looking forward to this…
>
> Beth Patterson
>
>
>
> From: synchroblog-bounces at p2ptrust.org [mailto:synchroblog- 
> bounces at p2ptrust.org] On Behalf Of Adam Gonnerman
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:56 AM
> To: Mailing list for the SynchroBloggers
> Subject: Junk E-Mail Re: [SynchroBlog] September 17th Synchroblog
>
>
>
> I've had some unpleasant run-ins with atheists online from time to  
> time, but then again I've had even worse experiences with people of  
> particular faith traditions, including fundamentalist Protestants  
> and militant converts to Orthodoxy.  That's a large part of the  
> reason why I avoid forums and discussion lists now.  They generate  
> a lot of heat but little light, generally attracting people with a  
> bone to pick.
>
>
>
> I can understand the concerns about including atheists in the  
> discussion, but I do believe their unbelief is a specific religious  
> viewpoint.  As I've mentioned, I think it's coming down to a  
> question of whether this interfaith synchroblog will focus on  
> discussing issues between faiths, or sharing individual  
> perspectives from different religious traditions on a common  
> topic.  It is also very apparent that there is a question of how  
> narrowly we are going to define "religious tradition" or "faith."   
> If atheists are to be excluded, then we are going to need to work  
> how what the limits actually are.  Can agnostics join?  I assume  
> not.  What about people who have no specific belief in a deity or  
> deities but who consider themselves "spiritual"?  There are many  
> forms of Buddhism that include no specific doctrines regarding a  
> deity, spirit/soul or the afterlife.  Are they to be included?
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative or insist on the inclusion of  
> atheists specifically, but I do believe that if there is to be an  
> "interfaith" synchroblog we need to know why we are doing it and  
> who can participate.
>
>
>
> Regards to all,
>
>
>
> Adam G.
>
>
>
> On 9/4/08, Phil Wyman <pastorphil at salemgathering.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Matt,
>
> I am not using the term "faith" as a synonym for belief, but rather
> as a religious worldview, which is the context of interfaith, and
> even in this atheism is a non-religious worldview.
>
> As defined by your last paragraph and perhaps discontinuing the term
> interfaith it would work well with even aggressive atheists.  I have
> been in interfaith meetings which have been poorly defined, only to
> discover people feeling disenfranchised, because they thought it was
> going to be something else.
>
> Phil
>
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:37 AM, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SynchroBlog mailing list
> SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
> http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Adam G.
> http://igneousquill.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> SynchroBlog mailing list
> SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
> http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://p2ptrust.org/pipermail/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org/attachments/20080904/d1ddf8eb/attachment.html 