TromboneChat

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 17, 2015, 08:37AMI thought that we were waiting on someone to perform an analysis on the First chapter of Genesis. I guess, BVB is trying to fill the time, while we wait.


I believe that that's over on the Christian matters thread

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 17, 2015, 08:37AMI thought that we were waiting on someone to perform an analysis on the First chapter of Genesis. I guess, BVB is trying to fill the time, while we wait.
bvb doesn't want to discuss Genesis. That would be discussing religion and he's anti religion.
See reply #40

MyBad, sorry for the confusion. Thanks!

This TED talk works to understand both sides of the liberal/conservative divide and how to bridge it for the sake of growth.  I found it insightful and think it explains the US cultural reality very well.

Travis, you didn't supply a link.

Its probably this one [url=https://Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fjonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind%3Flanguage%3Den&ei=9k3SVeqxK4X3mQX7nYLQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrKyyleVWql9oTirMlJOrt05QJg&bvm=bv.99804247,d.dGY/?]here[/url]

And here's somw articles on it in Positive Psychology News Daily and Ethics Defined

Both of which are liberals reporting on Consersatives values, so their opinions may offend.  Do no read if this is the case.

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 17, 2015, 02:20PMIts probably this one [url=https://Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fjonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind%3Flanguage%3Den&ei=9k3SVeqxK4X3mQX7nYLQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrKyyleVWql9oTirMlJOrt05QJg&bvm=bv.99804247,d.dGY/?]here[/url]
Looks like that one's gonna require a TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/qzrswnx

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 17, 2015, 05:08PM
Looks like that one's gonna require a TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/qzrswnx

That is it.  Sorry about the forgotten link.

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 17, 2015, 09:49AMThis TED talk works to understand both sides of the liberal/conservative divide and how to bridge it for the sake of growth.  I found it insightful and think it explains the US cultural reality very well.
Certainly seems to.
 
And some more "local" things ...
 
It explains why those who take a rigid view on things, or on some thing, tend to freak out when those things or that thing are challenged or often even questioned. It also explains that The US Culture War™ isn't just about liberalism or conservatism, but more about change vs. stability, openness vs. orthodoxy, and this is true of most social conflicts.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 18, 2015, 04:58AMopenness vs. orthodoxy
It might make sense in your culture but liberalism and conservatism, seem to be synonymous to change and stability

And openness and orthodoxy don't really seem to be mutually exclusive to me or necessarily characteristic of one side as opposed to the other.  Don't liberals have their own set of orthodox beliefs and values that they are fixed on and not open to change. eg Wouldn't liberals feel that fairness and equality were deeply and unshakably right? or would they be open to changing those values?

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 18, 2015, 05:26AMIt might make sense in your culture but liberalism and conservatism, seem to be synonymous to change and stability
 
And openness and orthodoxy don't really seem to be mutually exclusive to me or necessarily characteristic of one side as opposed to the other.  Don't liberals have their own set of orthodox beliefs and values that they are fixed on and not open to change. eg Wouldn't liberals feel that fairness and equality were deeply and unshakably right? or would they be open to changing those values?
You got it, but it seems you're just not quite realizing it.
 
The context of my comments is the video Trav1s posted.

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 17, 2015, 09:49AMThis TED talk works to understand both sides of the liberal/conservative divide and how to bridge it for the sake of growth.  I found it insightful and think it explains the US cultural reality very well.
A related notion interrupted my meditation this morning ... imposed its reality upon my experience by the shear force of its intimacy, having fully drilled through my skull and found purchase. It was a flash of depth--not anyhing new. This interruption was entirely your fault by the way, yours and Hedges'.
 
It takes a great deal to truly change one's perceptions to a significant degree--to alter the way we perceive--the words and ideas that occur in response to stimuli. You can jettison your doctrinal religious beliefs because you see through them, but you'll have to work a lot harder, or wait a good while (let it sneak up on you over the years), before you can remove the perceptual filter they've established over your senses and your mind. Until then you'll just have to recognize it and compensate. You can even internalize that process so it's second nature, but you're still seeing through the filter.
 
All that to maybe explain just how hard it really is, and unlikely, for any individual to get free and clear of The Matrix ... any matrix. Most aren't even inclined to reflect on such things, and why should they if things are going fine for them and they're not contemplative or introspective types? Another thing I've noticed along these lines is that very few seem to really go there--to really put their own perceptions and ideations under a microscope, even when they do those of others. I think we're all handicapped in that sense--very hard to use machinery to examine the machinery itself--but it also seems most are just categorically blind to all of this. And ultimately maybe it's like trying to directly view your own eyes.
 
Something else that comes out of this is the innateness of relativism--we're considering the relative smarts of some of the other smartest beasties in our experience of the Cosmos--makes me think maybe we're about an inch ahead on a journey of miles in a given metric.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 18, 2015, 06:20AMvery hard to use machinery to examine the machinery itself

Conceptual metaphors are not artistic devices like literary metaphors. (Kindly bear with me, it might make sense in a minute.) Conceptual metaphors form in the mind without conscious effort, as a natural consequence of experience. They shape the way we make sense of the world, influencing our outlook in ways that may be difficult to notice, looking from the inside. We each dwell in our own framework of metaphors, the ones we gather over a lifetime. Credible studies have shown that one frame inhibits all others.

Simply put, if a scene may be interpreted various ways, people tend to latch on to one interpretation, excluding others. Unfortunately, that leads to a mindset where "those other guys are just wrong," and hence are worthy of dismissal, disparagement, mockery, and the kind of straw-man attacks which work best in an echo chamber of like-minded people. Much better if we make conscious effort to see how those other guys are interpreting the world in ways that make sense to them.

Been chewing two previous posts by BVB and BTB since this morning.  The ideas of Hans-Georg Gadamer came to mind.  This article is a good summary but not sure if it will be good in the future.
http://tinyurl.com/obj3xk4

Unfortunately I missed this elective in seminary and would love to engage his work on a deeper level.  I also want to say that the blog seems to be a fair summary of what I remember from conversations with peers from sem who took the class. I appreciate that Gadamer attempted to systematically name the reality in which we exist - in short, we are shaped by our experiences and history and to understand self we need to work to understand experiences and history to which we assign meaning.

Here is the article copied and pasted from the blog which is going down.

QuoteHans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) was a continental philosopher, known for philosophical hermeneutics from Truth and Method, his magnum opus. Gadamer’s philosophy was phenomenological generally and descriptive particularly. In the following, a description of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics will be developed in investigating understanding and interpretation as such.

The Fusion of Horizons

Gadamer’s version of the hermeneutical circle, deals with prejudice (not in the negative sense), tradition, and understanding in the process of interpretation. For Gadamer, a historicist approach, to the theory of interpretation is critical, since one’s situation in life is a given in one’s perspective. He states,

“We define the concept of “situation” by saying that it represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence essential to the concept of situation is the concept of “horizon.” The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point. Applying this to the thinking mind, we speak of the narrowness of horizon, of the possible expansion of horizon, of the opening up of horizons, and so forth.”[1]

Now “situation” signifies the historical-cultural context of the thinking subject. Then “horizon” broadens that significance to mean the total background, e.g. presuppositions, rules, beliefs, implicit and explicit. The “vantage point” seems akin to the context of the subject, while the “range of vision” may indicate its conceptual-linguistic framework. In short, the “horizon” of “the thinking mind” may be something like a worldview. Thus Gadamer claims the horizon may condense and expand, close and open.

Moreover, Gadamer asserts that ‘situation’ or ‘horizon’ is the necessary background or framework of the interpreter in the process of interpretation, making the production of understanding a possibility. He says,

“In fact the horizon of the present is continually in the process of being formed because we are continually having to test all our prejudices. An important part of this testing occurs in encountering the past and in understanding the tradition form which we come.  Hence the horizon of the present cannot be formed without the past. There is no more an isolated horizon of the present in itself than there are historical horizons which have to be acquired. Rather, understanding is always the fusion of these horizons supposedly existing by themselves.”[2]

It is because our horizon of the present is continually merging with the horizon of the past (tradition) in the horizon of the text that we are “having to test our prejudices.” Gadamer claims that the horizon of the present is dependent on the past, i.e. text, tradition, history, implying prejudices or presuppositions per se. The “historical horizons” are inevitable to the development of the horizon of the present. Therefore, “understanding” arises from the “fusions of these horizons.” The notion that understanding may arise from the horizon of the past without the horizon of the future is fallacious.[3] Therefore, the emphasis is on the ‘fusion of horizons.’

Hermeneutics as Event

The fusion of horizons presupposes the discourse between past and present. Truth, understanding, and meaning are the conclusion of the fusion of horizons. Gadamer thinks the phenomena of fusion, i.e. the merging of the horizon of the past with the horizon of the present, is not a method, but an event. He claims,

“We showed that understanding is not a method which the inquiring consciousness applies to an object it chooses and so turns it into objective knowledge; rather, being situated within an event of tradition, a process of handing down, is a prior condition of understanding. Understanding proves to be an event.”[4]

I take, Gadamer to mean that understanding and truth arise in discourse between the interpreter and their historical situation, i.e. tradition. Understanding and truth as event arise from the fusion of horizons, i.e. past and present. Gadamer summarizes, “In our analysis of the hermeneutical process we saw that to acquire a horizon of interpretation requires a fusion of horizons.”[5] Therefore, the interpreter and their historical situation fuse, producing the “horizon of interpretation. The task of metahermeneutics, as noted before, is to investigate interpretation as such, i.e. the process of the interpreter, interpretation, and the interpreted.

Further, Gadamer takes meaning to arise from the event of the fusion of horizons. He says, “Quite the contrary, being an event is a characteristic belonging to the meaning itself.”[6] In other words, “meaning itself” arises from the discourse of event. Gadamer asserts that the “process of concept formation,” i.e. the production of understanding and meaning is “language as event.” Hence, “The unity of the word that explicates itself in the multiplicity of words manifests something that is not covered by the structure of logic.”[7]

Language as event, Gadamer proposes constitutes the form of “interpretation,” while the content of “appropriation” is contained in the horizon of the past and present. Gadamer states, “A more important point is the one to which we have constantly referred, namely that what constitutes the hermeneutical event proper is not language as language, whether as grammar or as lexicon; it consists in the coming into language of what has been said in the tradition: an event that is at once appropriation and interpretation.” In other words, the “event proper” is language in practice, i.e. the fusion of horizons. Therefore, “here it really is true to say that this event is not our action upon the thing, but the act of the thing itself.”[8] I take, Gadamer to conclude that understanding and meaning arise not in the event of the interpreter mastering the text, but in the text mastering the interpreter. Discourse as event proper is the “act of the thing itself” on “our action.”

No one could have seen this coming ... well, those who can think ahead just a little I suppose.
 
Not that I have a problem with it, but I'd be willing to bet most of those who are all into the RF"R"A (those bein' so oppressed) do.

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 18, 2015, 02:44PM I appreciate that Gadamer attempted to systematically name the reality in which we exist - in short, we are shaped by our experiences and history and to understand self we need to work to understand experiences and history to which we assign meaning.


 

Thanks, I enjoyed that.

While it is technically included in experiences and history, I think he errs (or at least in this short segment) by not assigning more weight to the influence of our peer culture.  That is far more powerful in defining our selves than we realize.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 19, 2015, 05:00AMThanks, I enjoyed that.I still need to read it again without distractions going on (first week of Fall classes here at UGA--very busy, very chaotic, very "noisy" ... also very engaging).
 
Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 19, 2015, 05:00AMWhile it is technically included in experiences and history, I think he errs (or at least in this short segment) by not assigning more weight to the influence of our peer culture.  That is far more powerful in defining our selves than we realize.From my initial (interrupted) readings I think he'd say that's part of the structure of historical horizons though--not just "technically" included but fundamentally so. One's peer group is a product of one's historical horizons. No?

The works of Thomas Merton are on my radar right now and Merton makes some interesting points about Western Christianity.  The biggest is that Western Christianity lost touch with its roots.  That includes the idea of false self and and true self as revealed by faith.  Ultimate who we believe we are and who God has created us to be as individuals and as community is NOT the same.  Faith at its best strips away the illusions and reveals another way of being in this world.  I have also come to believe that faith at its worst only adds to the illusions of this world. 

To use the language of the Old Testament - anything and everything can become an idol.  Truth be told, American Christianity has more in common with the pharisees that people care to admit.  The question is: Can we name our idols?

This comes from a daily email I get from CAC.org
QuoteHere is how Thomas Merton describes the False Self in New Seeds of Contemplation:
 
Every one of us is shadowed by an illusory person: a false self.
 
This is the man that I want myself to be but who cannot exist, because God does not know anything about him. And to be unknown of God is altogether too much privacy.
 
My false self and private self is the one who wants to exist outside of the reach of God's will and God's love--outside of reality and outside of life. And such a self cannot help but be an illusion.
 
We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish about ourselves--the ones we are born with and which feed the roots of sin. For most of the people in the world, there is no greater subjective reality than this false self of theirs, which cannot exist. A life devoted to the cult of this shadow is what is called a life of sin.
 
All sin starts with the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is the fundamental reality of life to which everything else in the universe is ordered. Thus I use up my life in the desire for pleasures and the thirst for experiences, for power, honor, knowledge, and love, to clothe this false self and construct its nothingness into something objectively real. [1]
 
And this is how Merton discovers his True Self:
 
The secret of my identity is hidden in the love and mercy of God.
 
But whatever is in God is really identical with Him, for His infinite simplicity admits no division and no distinction. Therefore I cannot hope to find myself anywhere except in Him.
 
Ultimately the only way I can be myself is to become identified with Him in Whom is hidden the reason and fulfillment of my existence.
 
Therefore there is only one problem on which all my existence, my peace and my happiness depend: to discover myself in discovering God. If I find Him I will find myself and if I find my true self I will find Him.
 
But . . . there is no human and rational way in which I can arrive at that contact, that possession of Him, which will be the discovery of Who He really is and of Who I am in Him.
 
That is something that no man can ever do alone. . . .
 
The only One Who can teach me to find God is God, Himself, Alone. [2]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 18, 2015, 06:20AM
A related notion interrupted my meditation this morning ... imposed its reality upon my experience by the shear force of its intimacy, having fully drilled through my skull and found purchase. It was a flash of depth--not anyhing new. This interruption was entirely your fault by the way, yours and Hedges'.
 
It takes a great deal to truly change one's perceptions to a significant degree--to alter the way we perceive--the words and ideas that occur in response to stimuli. You can jettison your doctrinal religious beliefs because you see through them, but you'll have to work a lot harder, or wait a good while (let it sneak up on you over the years), before you can remove the perceptual filter they've established over your senses and your mind. Until then you'll just have to recognize it and compensate. You can even internalize that process so it's second nature, but you're still seeing through the filter.
 
All that to maybe explain just how hard it really is, and unlikely, for any individual to get free and clear of The Matrix ... any matrix. Most aren't even inclined to reflect on such things, and why should they if things are going fine for them and they're not contemplative or introspective types? Another thing I've noticed along these lines is that very few seem to really go there--to really put their own perceptions and ideations under a microscope, even when they do those of others. I think we're all handicapped in that sense--very hard to use machinery to examine the machinery itself--but it also seems most are just categorically blind to all of this. And ultimately maybe it's like trying to directly view your own eyes.
 
Something else that comes out of this is the innateness of relativism--we're considering the relative smarts of some of the other smartest beasties in our experience of the Cosmos--makes me think maybe we're about an inch ahead on a journey of miles in a given metric.

Glad to see I am messing with your head.   

It is VERY hard work for some to see their own biases let alone name them and claim them.

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 19, 2015, 07:21AMGlad to see I am messing with your head.    I'd be happy to give you credit, but that happened that morning--before I'd gotten online at all, much less read that post.
 
But I'm sure you're complicit.
 
 

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 19, 2015, 07:21AMIt is VERY hard work for some to see their own biases let alone name them and claim them.Yup ... I'd say far harder than probably any of us could appreciate, but there are a lot of us who don't try or to whom the issue never even occurs. We're narcissism machines, but kinda-almost paradoxically that's only because we can consider other perspectives--or ignore/downplay them. Beasties without that capacity are inherently innocent of the offense because there's literally no other way they can be. We have the choice though. Part of what I think religion very often takes from us is the inclination to seriously consider these things, or to govern that consideration artificially.

More good stuff from Patheos (including a bone thrown to the "persecuted"):
 
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 1: It Does Not Exist
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 2: It's About Persecution
Reason™ Is Not Going To Save the World
The Myth of the Macho Christ
Democrats Need to Resurrect the Word "Evil"

Quote from: Trav1s on Aug 18, 2015, 02:44PMBeen chewing two previous posts by BVB and BTB since this morning.  The ideas of Hans-Georg Gadamer came to mind.  This article is a good summary but not sure if it will be good in the future.
http://tinyurl.com/obj3xk4

Unfortunately I missed this elective in seminary and would love to engage his work on a deeper level.  I also want to say that the blog seems to be a fair summary of what I remember from conversations with peers from sem who took the class. I appreciate that Gadamer attempted to systematically name the reality in which we exist - in short, we are shaped by our experiences and history and to understand self we need to work to understand experiences and history to which we assign meaning.

Here is the article copied and pasted from the blog which is going down.
 

I never had specific course on Gadamer, but I did take several courses from a theology professor who claimed to be influenced by him.  He regularly claimed that texts had no fixed meaning, but only had meaning when fused with the horizon of the interpreter. He said that texts, especially classic texts, opened up "new ways of being in the world."  I and others were never quite sure what he meant by that, but I felt like asking him if his writings could mean Mary had a little lamb if fused with my horizon, but I realized that that would be a little cheeky.  I never could see how his supposedly Gadamer influenced perspective could lead to anything but complete subjectivity.

I believe that a better model is the hermeneutical spiral.  One of my professors wrote on biblical interpretation from that perspective, but others have advocated it as well.  This model suggests that instead of going around in a circle, we spiral closer and closer to the correct interpretation as we check our perspectives over against those of others and hopefully move closer to the truth.  It takes time and effort, but I believe that is much closer to how the such for truth really works.  This model helps eliminate the subjectivity that many feel is inherent in the model of a hermeneutical circle while still recognizing that our historical situations are important.  Here a couple of links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Interpretation/dp/0830828265

I found these Patheos articles particularly interesting:
 
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 1: It Does Not Exist
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 2: It's About Persecution
 
I'm kinda curious what others think of them.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 19, 2015, 07:10PMI found these Patheos articles particularly interesting:
 
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 1: It Does Not Exist
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 2: It's About Persecution
 
I'm kinda curious what others think of them.

I'm not sure how well supported his theses are but they seem likely true to me - ie they fit with what I would expect the situation to be, ie that 1. That parts of American Culture is biased against Conservative Christianity and that 2. Christians in America do not face Real persecution.  I think that this is the case in AUS too. I'd be interested to see if you think his case is supported by evidence.  This implies that I think that lots of what passes for Christianity in America is really a cultural version of Christianity.  But I'm open to having this impression debunked.

I found it ironic that Christians seem to be shocked that they are allegedly persecuted and complain about it or seek to benefit from it, when the bible says that we should expect it, and count it a privilege (see for example 1 Peter).   

So what do you think of the articles Byron, I'm curious?

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 19, 2015, 10:50AMMore good stuff from Patheos (including a bone thrown to the "persecuted"):
 
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 1: It Does Not Exist
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 2: It's About Persecution
Reason™ Is Not Going To Save the World
The Myth of the Macho Christ
Democrats Need to Resurrect the Word "Evil"

My prize for the best quote of the week goes to "Reason is not going to save the World"

"Asking a Hindu to resist eating a cheeseburger would be like asking you to resist walking down the street naked while belching the French national anthem into a hot-pink megaphone. That was not a thing you were thinking of doing.*"

____
* Do not do this. But post a video if you do.
____

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 19, 2015, 09:50PMI'm not sure how well supported his theses are but they seem likely true to me - ie they fit with what I would expect the situation to be, ie that 1. That most parts of American Culture is biased against Conservative Christianity and that 2. Christians in America do not face Real persecution.  I think that this is the case in AUS too. I'd be interested to see if you think his case is supported by evidence.

I found it ironic that Christians seem to be shocked that they are allegedly persecuted and complain about it or seek to benefit from it, when the bible says that we should expect it, and count it a privilege (see for example 1 Peter).   

So what do you think of the articles?

Ignore this I pushed the wrong button.

China bans reincarnation
QuoteThe China State Administration for Religious Affairs issued a statement stipulating the rigid procedures which one must follow to reincarnate. They gave the following reason: "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 19, 2015, 09:50PMSo what do you think of the articles Byron, I'm curious?
I'm gonna give it a little more time before commenting ...

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 20, 2015, 04:05PM
I'm gonna give it a little more time before commenting ...
why?

Quote from: ronkny on Aug 20, 2015, 06:16PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 20, 2015, 04:05PMI'm gonna give it a little more time before commenting ...why?
For duplicitous and nefarious and ideally diabolical purposes ... of course.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 21, 2015, 04:05AMFor duplicitous and nefarious and diabolical purposes ... of course.
So basically because it is too petty and shallow to publicly voice...



One of those "what did I just say?!" things.

Remember - It's OK to attack the message, but not the messenger.

Quote from: HeRoze on Aug 20, 2015, 09:12AMChina bans reincarnation
Awesome ...
 
 
 
Pretty amazing what happens when government doesn't stay clear of religion. For example. The ceremony itself is no big deal--arguably within the boundaries of "civil religion"--it's the mentality behind it/of those holding the ceremony that's off the rails (and one example of why the psychology of belief, and religious belief in particular, is so interesting and consequential).

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 19, 2015, 09:50PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 19, 2015, 07:10PMI found these Patheos articles particularly interesting:
 
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 1: It Does Not Exist
Myths About Christiantophobia - Pt. 2: It's About Persecution
 
I'm kinda curious what others think of them.I'm not sure how well supported his theses are but they seem likely true to me - ie they fit with what I would expect the situation to be, ie that 1. That parts of American Culture is biased against Conservative Christianity and that 2. Christians in America do not face Real persecution.  I think that this is the case in AUS too. I'd be interested to see if you think his case is supported by evidence.  This implies that I think that lots of what passes for Christianity in America is really a cultural version of Christianity.  But I'm open to having this impression debunked.
 
I found it ironic that Christians seem to be shocked that they are allegedly persecuted and complain about it or seek to benefit from it, when the bible says that we should expect it, and count it a privilege (see for example 1 Peter). 
 
So what do you think of the articles Byron, I'm curious?
I agree they ring true, but it doesn't mean much. It's kinda like HeRoze's favorite quote from those articles (Asking a Hindu to resist eating a cheeseburger would be like asking you to resist walking down the street naked while belching the French national anthem into a hot-pink megaphone. That was not a thing you were thinking of doing.). Yancey addresses only the most extreme notions that only appear if you take the ideas behind them way beyond their reasonable limits--he argues that anti-Christian sentiment does exist (as if its existence was a matter of contention rather than its degree and impact) and generally maintains his focus in that kind of safe area, which keeps is safely from the relevant areas. That would be fine if the extremists were his focus, but the articles are instead (believed to be) about the Myths of Christianophobia, not Christianophobes, and the fact anti-Christian sentiment does exist is hardly saying much of anything at all about Christianophobia unless you've shifted the goalposts rather dramatically. Some people think they're Jesus too, but that doesn't say much about self-righteousness. When Yancey ignores these contextual factors he conflates warranted and at least understandable negative sentiment toward Christians (including from other Christians) with Christianophobia.
 
His article is a study in how unfettered bias (or at least under-fettered bias) can shift one's perspective to an angle that can seem reasonable but clearly isn't without the bias filtering one's perceptions, and a little strategic shift in context can go a very long way when bias is at the mind's helm.
 
I find that pretty interesting, and I suspect others will as well (assuming I'm right about that and that they read it, unfortunately much more likely with this comment in mind to create bias ... including reverse bias).

Jesus & Mo on the Templeton Foundation.

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PMCutoff from the Tree of Life:
 
Can you imagine how much evil would be present in the world today, if everyone, evil doers especially, have never died, but still living among us?Actually when forced by our environment we'd have become much better at getting a long with each other. Either that or we'd have died out ... well, or become a different kind of beastie--maybe a more clan or pride-based social structure. But odds are we'd have found ways to sort it out with more social environmental pressure (maybe by eliminating violent types' reproductivity).
 
Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PMIt seems to me that God did us an extreme favor.By making us with inclinations such that, if we don't compensate, suppress and generally self-regulate in order to be decent neighbors, will make us terrible, violent neighbors.
 
Thanks!
 
Of course being omnipotent (presumably) he could have made us with an even more cooperative and less violent nature. But then some of us seem to really want to exonerate God and to give us full credit for being created with our Dark Side (those who believe things as in the quoted post).
 
Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PMFruit of knowledge:
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the more evil we're able to come up with? Sure, we always create new knowledge in the hope of creating a better life, but with it, comes extreme evil. Do you think that God knew we would have been better off if they hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?Ignorance is bliss.
 
But it's really, really boring bliss.
 
Well, and it would also mean we'd be more at the tender mercies of nature (predators and disease and such).
 
I think these ideas are terribly compelling until you actually consider them without blinders on.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 28, 2015, 06:03AM
 By making us with inclinations such that, if we don't compensate, suppress and generally self-regulate in order to be decent neighbors, will make us terrible, violent neighbors.

 
Well, and it would also mean we'd be more at the tender mercies of nature (predators and disease and such).
 


There's an article in the current Scientific American talking about reasons Homo sapiens outcompeted the competitors.

it suggests that the availability of reliable food in a defendable area for a small segment of the human population was a selective pressure that produced cooperation genes, as well as highly competitive ones.  The combination of cooperation, competitiveness, and projectile weapons allowed that small segment to move out of Africa and dominate the rest of the world, elimating Neandertals, Denisovians, etc. 

I haven't read it in depth yet, just scanned it, but it is interesting.

Religious extremist tear down 100+ y/o statue because it "Mephistopheles embodies evil in this world and this person decided to act, most likely, to kill Evil," spokesman Roman Bagdasarov... Cossacks of Saint Petersburg said the figure encouraged "open worship of Satan" and was unacceptable because it was opposite a church.

Quote from: HeRoze on Aug 30, 2015, 04:42PMReligious extremist tear down 100+ y/o statue because it "Mephistopheles embodies evil in this world and this person decided to act, most likely, to kill Evil," spokesman Roman Bagdasarov... Cossacks of Saint Petersburg said the figure encouraged "open worship of Satan" and was unacceptable because it was opposite a church.

Forgot the link... http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/30/hundreds-rally-in-st-petersburg-over-destruction-of.html

I'm surprised I just discovered this. John M Allegro was a Dead Sea Scroll scholar, translated and sponsored the Copper Scroll, and was entrusted with the publication of the  pesharim. He determined that Christianity was driven by human needs, and thinks man developed God in the image of man (not the other way around). He also suggests the authors of the "Christian gospels did not understand Essene thought, they had confused the meaning of the scrolls and built the Christian tradition based on the misunderstanding of the scrolls.[22][25] Allegro argued that story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the scrolls.[26]" His most interesting interpretation is that the NT is a effort to explain psychedelics. Here's a video interview where he discusses a lot of these theories.

https://youtu.be/mOu9tV6uy2E


Like we see here, he once stated "It's a pity that you and your friends cannot conceive of anything written about Christianity without trying to grind some ecclesiastical or non-ecclesiastical axe."

Not quite the way I'd put these things, but fair enough I suppose (about half of that actual agenda looks okay to good):
 
The Atheist Agenda

"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other."

I know he's talking about morals when he say's we can know nothing.  But he "believes" this.  That would be sacrilege for an atheist, or whatever the equivalent term is.  But how does he know this, apart from blind faith I mean.

I don't like the early start on that agenda. Can we raise it under AOB at the next Atheist Committee Meeting?

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 07:19PM"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other."

I know he's talking about morals when he say's we can know nothing.  But he "believes" this.  That would be sacrilege for an atheist, or whatever the equivalent term is.  But how does he know this, apart from blind faith I mean.

Not knowing things is the base state of being. You begin not knowing things, and tack them on as you gain certainty. [I'm aware that some religious people view that matter differently, in what looks to me like a pre-emptive defensive manoeuvre] Not quite sure exactly where he's going with making a little credo there, other than trying to explicitly get slightly into the heads of those that unthinkingly think of atheism as an unkind position.

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 07:19PM"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other."
 
I know he's talking about morals when he say's we can know nothing.
I'm not sure she limits it to morality, but I'm not exactly a Katherine Hepburn expert either.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 07:19PMBut he "believes" this.  That would be sacrilege for an atheist, or whatever the equivalent term is.  But how does he know this, apart from blind faith I mean.
What exactly are you actually objecting to there?
 
Are you claiming we can't know that we don't know things? Do you have to have faith to know that you don't know what it feels like to be on Mars or who's going to buy the next wristwatch at Macy's in Santa Rosa, CA, or whether the traffic signal at Main and Broad is red, green or yellow right now at this moment in the nearest instance of such an intersection beyond your view?
 
Or are you just being extremely literal about the phrase "we know nothing" for some reason rather than accepting it as a strong statement regarding the extreme difference between what we think we know, generally speaking, and what we really know--as in "You know nothing John Snow." (for Game of Thrones fans) or pretty much any other instance in which one character tells another that he or she knows nothing?

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 03:28AMQuote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 07:19PM"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other."
 
I know he's talking about morals when he say's we can know nothing.  But he "believes" this.  That would be sacrilege for an atheist, or whatever the equivalent term is.  But how does he know this, apart from blind faith I mean.I don't like the early start on that agenda. Can we raise it under AOB at the next Atheist Committee Meeting?The next meeting is the baby potluck/ice-cream social, so I gather you mean the meeting after that ... you really need to start reading the schedule and agendas more carefully, man. And we don't sacrifice a virgin at every freakin' meeting. You can't keep using that as an excuse for bringing them--no one's buying it.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 03:28AMNot knowing things is the base state of being. You begin not knowing things, and tack them on as you gain certainty.Degrees of certainty is a very sketchy business though--not to disagree, but it's always a judgment call as to what degree of certainty qualifies as "knowing". The more important issue to me is consistency--it's kind of a tell. Often it's just a tell, flat out, though that's also a judgment call based upon the degree of disparity. It's a pretty inescapable expression in the formula of pretty near everything that has to do with how we perceive and understand things. The implications are pretty seriously consequential in terms of their impact on religious beliefs and the reliability of alleged communication from supernatural realms and such.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 03:28AM[I'm aware that some religious people view that matter differently, in what looks to me like a pre-emptive defensive manoeuvre]Like the whole presupposition schtick.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 03:28AMNot quite sure exactly where he's going with making a little credo there, other than trying to explicitly get slightly into the heads of those that unthinkingly think of atheism as an unkind position.Or, more specifically to my thinking, simply the fact that it is considered dark and unkind and such be cultural (socialization) default, which is really quite absurd when you think about it--rather, it says a lot about the perception and little if anything about what's being (very proactively) perceived.

This one is odd to me.
 
Atheism has a sexism problem and we all need to help fix it
Will Misogyny Bring Down the Atheist Movement?
Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet
 
The first time I became aware of the extent of this strange mental disease going on amongst activist atheist dude types was Elevatorgate (warning: Greta Christina sometimes uses words many choose to be offended over). Why are so many dudes so fragile about women not being all into them (or that sort of thing)? How can it serve their ego (apparently) to whine about it like someone not being attracted to them or open to their advances is some sort of deep injustice? How can being so pathetic actually bolster one's ego? And why is a generally progressive and critically-minded crüe so haunted by this malady--why this particular malady?

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Sep 01, 2015, 05:08AM

Quote from: drizabone on 01-09-2015,  02:19:02 PM
But he "believes" this.  That would be sacrilege for an atheist, or whatever the equivalent term is.  But how does he know this, apart from blind faith I mean.
 
What exactly are you actually objecting to there?

I was under the impression that atheists in general and you in particular thought that belief was equivalent to "blind faith" or "thinking something was true without any evidence".  Every time a christian says faith or believe there's a widespread outcry that the foundations of life, epistemology and the universe are under threat. 

So my point was that it is ironic to be discussing a post that says "I'm an atheist and I believe ..." without being worried about the foundations of life, epistemology and the universe.

Ok, I am exaggerating a bit, just using a bit of poetic licence.

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 03, 2015, 05:27PMI was under the impression that atheists in general and you in particular thought that belief was equivalent to "blind faith" or "thinking something was true without any evidence".Only in regard to blind faith or thinking something's true without any evidence.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Sep 03, 2015, 05:27PMEvery time a christian says faith or believe there's a widespread outcry that the foundations of life, epistemology and the universe are under threat.That's funny, but hyperbole is often used to cast an issue in an extreme form to cover valid points. So what about the legitimate epistemic complaint?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Sep 03, 2015, 05:27PMSo my point was that it is ironic to be discussing a post that says "I'm an atheist and I believe ..." without being worried about the foundations of life, epistemology and the universe.I consider "believe" an inherently muddy term--it's sloppy and it's two most common uses are inescapably contradictory ("I believe" meaning I think X is the case but with significant reservations and "I believe" meaning this is what I think is true without reservation). It makes the term very useful for blurring those lines, which is why I think it's so popular with certain groups, and why I personally fine it so problematic. It has to be defined almost at every use in order to avoid rather free and seamless equivocation.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Sep 03, 2015, 05:27PMOk, I am exaggerating a bit, just using a bit of poetic licence.What about when you don't?

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 03, 2015, 05:27PMI was under the impression that atheists in general and you in particular thought that belief was equivalent to "blind faith" or "thinking something was true without any evidence". 
Like, maybe, "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen."  (John 20:29)

There's believing with some evidence.

There's believing without evidence.  I call that faith.

Then there's believing despite evidence to the contrary.  That is very problematic for me.   

Quote from: timothy42b on Sep 04, 2015, 05:11AMLike, maybe, "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen."  (John 20:29)

There's believing with some evidence.

There's believing without evidence.  I call that faith.

Then there's believing despite evidence to the contrary.  That is very problematic for me.   

Tim the problem with your biblical quote is that, in context, it actually is closer to your first definition rather than your second.  In that passage Jesus is speaking about directly seeing Him and not believing the testimony of the other disciples who had seen Him.  This is shown by the very next verse in which He says:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


When Jesus speaks about believing because of the many signs that he has done, He is not speaking about believing without any evidence as you suggest.

When Paul emphasizes the basics of the Christian faith in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff, he speaks of the saving acts of Jesus, i.e. the death, burial and resurrection.  However, he goes on to speak at length of the appearances of Jesus to a large and varied number of people. This also emphasizes that the "blind leap" definition of faith does not fit well with Christianity.