In Reply to: No posted by CB on September 30, 2006 at 14:19:51:
CB said:
"I don't think you need two boards. As a progressive Christian, I sometimes feel caught in the cross-fire between Christian-identified fundies and Humanist-identified agnostics & atheists, since I practice Christian humanism. Basically, I get offended by both ends of the pole at times. You've tried a Christian board before. Why go there again? NDN fills this need for me. When I want to feel safe to express my journey using biblical language and the Christian idioms, I post at NDN. I want a place to go where I can listen to the reasoned arguments of humanists and other non-Christians. OK, so the arguments aren't always reasoned out well, but there is at least a desire on the part of the humanist, atheist, buddhist, queer, 12 stepping, islamic taoists to voice a world view and spiritual journey in their own terms. As you stated in your other post on Journeys, Christians will inevitably post on the non-believers board and the spiritually different will post on the Christian board. As a bi-spiritual person, I'd end up in both places getting hammered for refusing to get off the fence. Here's the bottom line as I see it: Some people (myself included) have issues that make it difficult for them to always participate in on an online discussion in a respectful & civil manner. One of the biggest problems many of exers have involves an inability to recognize and respect someone else's emotional, spiritual, and psychological boundaries. It seems to me that Journeys--as well as the Gen-X board--is a place to learn about respecting diversity. The biggest lesson for me of late has been to understand and appreciate how everyone's experience of being in TF is different. That increased awareness happened on this site, not NDN or xfamily or MO."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CB:
I don’t think that we need two boards; either, but for different reasons. Your phrasing is very interesting when you write such things as: “…cross-fire between Christian-identified fundies and Humanist-identified agnostics & atheists, since I practice Christian humanism…”. It is extremely “loaded” from my point of view.
I find “Christian identified fundies” is also very loaded, and quite a bit insulting, as if the opposite is to be assumed a priori to be true, and the only “truth” available, through some assumed non-existent and totally imaginary homogenization of all available beliefs, as if that could be true; when the faith statements of each not only can be but actually are diametrically opposed.. That denatures Biblical historic and Biblical Christianity to the point of its disappearance.
AS I pointed out in a previous post to you, CB, I have observed that humanism has its roots not in secular presumptions, but originally in Christianity, both just historically, nad in Christianities basic assumptions about the nature of man, in every way. For you to claim a “progressive “ Christianity, therefore, further clouds the issue, not in confusing me, because it doesn’t.
To me, you actually seem to play both ends from the middle, but are not serious, or possibly even sincere, IMO, at either end. You seem to believe in private “facts”; actually. I’m not attacking YOU, by saying that, I just think it is obvious you believe that, I must say analytically, from what you write; no offense intended.
Please define your terms (or why bother posting?), so we can all be on the same page, and understand what it is you are actually trying to communicate. Are you secular humanist? Or, are you a believer in some kind of hybrid of the two? I have asked this question in several forms, before, and you never actually answer; I’ve noticed. Could you tell me why?
I think that collapsing form the new philosophical hoinesty position to the lesser idea of two boards, is to cave in to, yes, a “side” which cannot accept that when someone proposes discussion of the basic tenets of historic orthodox Christianity, that what is clearly and unequivocally stated in such verses as John 14:6, and in Acts 4:12 is not something to dance around. Christianity IS absolutely exclusivist. NO ONE comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, and neither IS THERE salvation in any other name under heaven. Avoiding the fact that that IS the central issue and belief of Christianity, is a complete absurdity. So, why dance around the issue? When THAT is the topic of discussion, it WILL come up, and people WILL take sides.
I think that the problem is using the same language, which, it appears, is what WC is trying to accomplish, here.
What is disingenuous is the idea that we should PRETEND that exchanges on that subject will provoke disagreement.
Here’s an example of the point I am trying to make. We had a very LONG string of posts on the definition of Islam, for a while. Its document-based exclusivism was nearly completely ignored, while Christianity’s was thoroughly attacked, and not just by generalist anti-theists. There was an insistence by several people, among them some relatively NEW posters, that only the wishful thinking of the currently tyrannically “politically correct” (so-called) point of view could possibly be THE interpretation about the nature of Islam; all in the face of what Suras 5, 9, and 11 of the Quran ACTUALLY have said, since its inception, regarding intentional deception and propensity to violence against Muslims not on-board yet with original jihadism, as well as against all Christians and Jews, and anyone else resisting the violent imposition of a worldwide “fundie” caliphate (in an MUCH more historically accurate and philosophical use of THAT word, DB—actually, confusing that with original historic Christianity is fundamentally fraudulent and dishonest,IMO); with all due respect to your right to choose to believe and express anything you like, if it at least follows the rules of LANGUAGE; if nothing else. The ideas may appear gibberish to some of us. At least the words will not; “Twas brillig, and the slithey troves did gibe and gimble in the wabe” sounds funny, and does amuse us, but can never really “say” anything, philosophically. Definitionally it is gibberish.
So, to return to my main point, I say that I can PROVE, if given an honest chance, that true and Biblical, historic orthodox Christianity, as opposed to the TFI FALSE Christianity, can do quite well in the public free marketplace of ideas, if you will, if honest no-tricks straight analytical philosophy, and its rules of communication, including the distinction between wannabe “scientism”, and actual empirical science and the STRICT scientific method, are carefully and politely adhered to. I think that that IS possible.
It is philosophically dishonest, as well, to insist on reframing historic orthodox Christianity as “disrespect” when it is shown, politely, and, as Peter insisted, “with meekness and reverence” toward others, as well as toward God, to disagree with subjects such as secular dogmatic anti-theism, New Age/Old Lie/neo-paganism, spiritism, etc.
As I said, on a level playing field, it can definitely hold its own. That’s all I am asking for; honesty and fair rules for all, and the right to object, if done amicably and intelligently.
Since we are all human, from whatever point of view anyone interprets that, we will disagree on quite a number of things. That’s to be expected, On the average, we probably DO generate a lot more heat than light.
But we have the FREEDOM to do that, and it is a GLORIOUS freedom, at that, since we are no longer in the TFI cult. I personally credit and than God for that (and NOT the TFI “other Christ”; either). I CERTIANLY cannot “thank”any thing like “time plus chance”; can I; since they do not actually exist, except as mere concepts; right?
Just expect me to question you VERY closely about your idea about supposed Christian “idioms”, CB.
Please also expect my very pointed and rational questions directed towards what you are calling “…the reasoned arguments of humanists and other non-Christians…”, as well as the ideas of the “…humanist, atheist, buddhist, queer, 12 stepping, islamic Taoists…”, who ‘…voice a world view and spiritual journey in their own terms…”.
You will have to expect me to present those questions from my own Christian point of view (and as I define it, to be fair), whatever you choose to call it; whether a stereotyping slur, or something more respectful, and historically accurate. That, of course is your own free-will choice.
I say that there is much more there than “meets the eye”.
Shall we dialogue, or shall we Balkanize and “Ghetto-fy?”
Let’s continue to dialogue; shall we?
Nitpicky, but respectfully,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)