[SynchroBlog] Joseph - need your url too

Phil Wyman pastorphil at salemgathering.com
Thu Sep 4 20:01:52 BST 2008 

or are you responding as the wrong joe?

On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Phil Wyman wrote:

> whoops,
>
> realized I already had it - thanks bro.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080904/987ad95b/attachment-0001.html

More information about the SynchroBlog mailing list