[SynchroBlog] SynchroBlog Digest, Vol 210, Issue 4

Thu Sep 4 16:44:08 BST 2008

I'm in for the 17th September, and for an inter-faith discussion/synchroblog

Sally

-----Original Message-----
From: synchroblog-bounces at p2ptrust.org
[mailto:synchroblog-bounces at p2ptrust.org] On Behalf Of
synchroblog-request at p2ptrust.org
Sent: 04 September 2008 16:35
To: synchroblog at p2ptrust.org
Subject: SynchroBlog Digest, Vol 210, Issue 4

Send SynchroBlog mailing list submissions to
	synchroblog at p2ptrust.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	synchroblog-request at p2ptrust.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	synchroblog-owner at p2ptrust.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of SynchroBlog digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Junk E-Mail Re:  September 17th Synchroblog (Beth Patterson)
   2. Re: September 17th Synchroblog (Phil Wyman)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:39:43 -0700
From: "Beth Patterson" <beth at virtualteahouse.com>
Subject: Re: [SynchroBlog] Junk E-Mail Re:  September 17th Synchroblog
To: "'Mailing list for the SynchroBloggers'"
	<synchroblog at p2ptrust.org>
Message-ID: <005f01c90e9c$12e53cb0$2701a8c0 at lassen>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://p2ptrust.org/pipermail/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org/attachments/20080904/
7df7e6e1/attachment-0001.html 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:35:01 -0400
From: Phil Wyman <pastorphil at salemgathering.com>
Subject: Re: [SynchroBlog] September 17th Synchroblog
To: Mailing list for the SynchroBloggers <synchroblog at p2ptrust.org>
Message-ID: <985F9A22-D9C0-4C1A-B2D1-4A4E63CEE760 at salemgathering.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hey Adam,

I don't have any concerns about including atheists in discussion  
actually.  Unless the discussion is assumed to be religious without  
challenge to the acceptance of religion as valid for human experience  
- this is the mature of interfaith discussion.  I simply would not  
want to falsely advertise "interfaith."

Phil

On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Adam Gonnerman wrote:

> 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?< /div>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://p2ptrust.org/pipermail/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org/attachments/20080904/
50c2590a/attachment.html 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
SynchroBlog mailing list
SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org

End of SynchroBlog Digest, Vol 210, Issue 4
*******************************************