[SynchroBlog] Joseph - need your url too

Thu Sep 4 20:00:35 BST 2008

do you want to go by MIller or Speranzella?
Phil

that's my confusion

On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Joe Miller wrote:

> sure, here it is brother.
>
> ----------------------------------
> www.MoreThanCake.org
>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Phil Wyman wrote:
>
>> Hey Joe - send me your url.
>> Phil
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:36 PM, JOSEPH L SPERANZELLA wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm in for the 17th and am of no opinion about the interfaith  
>>> idea except to expect trolls if we go forward.
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> Joe
>>> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:56:00 -0400
>>> From: igneousquill at gmail.com
>>> To: synchroblog at p2ptrust.org
>>> Subject: 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://p2ptrust.org/pipermail/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org/attachments/20080904/a76097a3/attachment.html 