Spiritual Revolutions: Revolutionary Spirit

[Frank 013]

Quote:Patience, sympathy, empathy, humor, and the ability to walk away with a good conscience free of resentment.That's assuming that you are not killed and still capable of walking away.There are many people in this world that will kill a person simply for saying that they are a Christian. Oddly enough these people are the people that you would need to speak with to achieve peace.Quote:I don't know what you mean by "Christian belief".The belief that Christ was the son of God, that he walked the earth and that he died for your sins.Quote:Many thought King was doomed to failure as well.King had a huge advantage; he was preaching peace and Christ in a mostly Christian environment. This is not the case globally. Heck it's not even the case here in America any more, a large number of black Americans are turning to the Muslim faith of late.Later Edited by: Frank 013 at: 10/19/06 9:01 pm

[Frank 013]

DHQuote:I suppose I am burdened with the faith that people will be able to make important distinctions between Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps it would be easier if atheists who knew better, were more willing to make that distinction as well.First of all I am not talking specifically about Hitler or MLK but the power of titles. And it is not Atheists I am referring to when I say people won't listen. I am in fact saying that religious fanatics won't listen to each other. When you have two differing viewpoints neither of which can be argued logically there simply can never be any real conclusion to the argument.Quote:Again, maybe if vociferous atheists were more willing to avoid labeling all religious folk as wacky nut-jobs, and were able to make important distinctions between religious traditions...then those outsiders hungry for altercation and violence might find less support. Your leaving out 2/3 of the human population that believe the same thing about Christianity, not because they are atheists but because they believe something else altogether. Quote:Just because people exist who irresponsibly stereotype and unabashedly revel in their prejudices, being unable to make important distinctions or allow for differing perspectives, is no reason to throw your hands up and say "Ok, you win...we won't try to deal with the real world...I never suggested that we should give up trying to deal with the real world. But if you want to change it, you should know something about the people who you would see changed, they are the very essence of prejudice, intolerance and pre-judgment. When approaching people like this you should consider not walking up with a dead rat instead of an olive branch. (To clarify... to most of the human population Christianity = dead rat) I personally have found in my dealings with people that by leaving religion out of a topic, and it can easily be done, that I can find common ground much faster.You seem to think that the topic of religion can't be avoided, well it can.Quote:Which is not at all what I said, and has been a position I have explicitly rejected throughout this entire thread. My point was descriptive, nor prescriptive.I apologize, I misunderstood your post. It had the ring of "I told you so" to it.Later

[Dissident Heart]

Frank: First of all I am not talking specifically about Hitler or MLK but the power of titles.And I am talking about the power of thoughtful people to make meaningful distinctions, and to not allow the fanatics and haters to determine our categories for describing the world.Frank: And it is not Atheists I am referring to when I say people won't listen. I am in fact saying that religious fanatics won't listen to each other.I don't know how effective simply talking will be to fanatics. I know Dr. King was facing some of history's ugliest when he encouraged his community to not only talk, but to sit, march, sing, pray and protest and be willing to suffer humiliating blows, go to jail, and have their homes bombed and lives threatened....without losing dignity, growing in hope and showing that they were no longer afraid of the bigots and fanatics and haters who poisoned their world.I think those who lump all religious life into one category of "deluded superstition" miss the value, dignity and beauty of the agapic radicalism embodied in those like Dr. King. I think this mistake makes it easier for the religious fanatics to dominate the discussion. In a sense, those atheists who fail to make these crucial distinctions agree with the fanatics in that they both see religion as only a force for authoritarian dominance.Frank: Youre leaving out 2/3 of the human population that believe the same thing about ChristianityI find it hard to beleive that mutlitple billions of people can all believe the same way about any subject. Care to elaborate on this claim? I do think a great number of these folk, given the opportunity, would find something valuable, truthful, and perhaps even worthy of emulation of the kind of agapic radicalism described in this thread. Actually, if you take some time and read Gottlieb's masterful anthology above, Liberating Faith, you'll discover tens of thousands of men, women and children from all religious traditions, across the globe, engaged in lifestyles and activism very similar and even indebted to Dr. King...not as Christians, but as human beings struggling for social and economic justice as well as ecological sanity.Frank: But if you want to change it, you should know something about the people who you would see changed, they are the very essence of prejudice, intolerance and pre-judgment.I think we can all go for a bit of a change: there's plenty of room for improvement on all sides, and there's work to be done right now that demands profound shifting of economic priorities and social structure. I'm not so sure how to really impact the beliefs of fanatics: but I do think their power base rests in the lives of fairly reasonable and compassionate people terrified for their lives. It is with this population that I think real change is possible: but they need a vision for a new way of life and hope that it is actually possible, and courage to pursue that hope. I think atheists who disregard the differences in religions of hope and religions of fear are adding to the discouragement of that larger population.Frank: I personally have found in my dealings with people that by leaving religion out of a topic, and it can easily be done, that I can find common ground much faster.I don't think religion has to be a part of every topic, but I think it is an important element in the lives of billions; and if you want to address issues of importance, you need to address religion. I do not think the solution involves supressing one's atheism or one's theism. I think an important step is learning how to make distinctions that matter.

[Frank 013]

I find it amazing that anyone can still believe that any religion is capable of bringing peace to another.If anything, history has shown us quite the opposite. Religion is great for uniting like minded people, but has failed repeatedly in the area of foreign unification.People of other faiths even when they have the same basic values tend to be insulted when the Christian, all powerful, one and only God, is thrown in their faces. Just by bringing up the Christian God you have implied that their belief is inferior. Religion is an important part of billions of people's lives but not just Christian religion. Many, would be allies will simply be turned away by a Christian religious title.For instance, if you were trying to put together a political movement to wipe out the unfair tax laws and remove lobbyists from the political arena, I would support it 100%, based on that information alone. I might even join up as a volunteer because I agree that those are problems that need to be addressed.Now if it were a Christian organization I would not even want to touch the cause, not because of what they are trying to accomplish, but because saying that it is a Christian organization says something about the people I will have to deal with. I might have to put up with prayer meetings and singing on busses, all kinds of silly annoying crap. There are many other people, who believe as I do, and not just atheists but Muslims, Jews, new age followers, Wiccans, agnostics and other branches of Christianity that are not compatible with yours.I'm sorry if it hurts to hear the truth but Christianity does not always bring people together, in many cases it pushes them away.And try as you might you cannot escape the history of the title.Later

[Dissident Heart]

Frank: People of other faiths even when they have the same basic values tend to be insulted when the Christian, all powerful, one and only God, is thrown in their faces. Just by bringing up the Christian God you have implied that their belief is inferior.Care to show how I've argued that the Christian God should be thrown in anyone's face, or that Dr. King's method of radical agapism, or any of the work exhibited in Gottlieb's Liberating Faith exhibits this tendency? I suggest you explore the very rich and diverse world of ecumenical activism and inter-religious dialogue where folks of different faiths do not insult wach other...but actually learn from each other and share in the work that will transforms their worlds. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Indigenous communities, and various mixes across the globe are able to address the pressing concerns of their lives in a spirit of collaboration, cooperation and humility. Obviously, we should all hope that more and more get involved...but your unwillingness to make these crucial distinctions certainly doesn't help; again, it simply reinforces the position of the exclucivist, authoritarian and fanatical communities.Frank: Religion is an important part of billions of people's lives but not just Christian religion. Many, would be allies will simply be turned away by a Christian religious title.I don't think I've made any claim to a triumphalist Christian claim to universal exclusive rights of God, truth, morality or beauty, etc. I've tried to focus this thread on a kind of Christianity that is more interested in how to feed the hungry, house the homeless, protect the biosphere, and honor the dignity of humans as civil beings with rights and liberties worthy fo great care and sacrifice....as opposed to a kind of Christianity that is simply interested in claiming universal domination and global adherence to a single theological narrative.I think a crucial link to the kind of Christianity this thread points to is found in this section of Matthew, where the children of God are confused as to when they were serving God: Quote:the righteous will answer God, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'If folks from different religions were introduced to Christianity according to this rubric (and it is NOT an isolated text, but an integral component throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament) I think we can go a long way from insulting and throwing God in their faces.Frank: Now if it were a Christian organization I would not even want to touch the cause, not because of what they are trying to accomplish, but because saying that it is a Christian organization says something about the people I will have to deal with.That's your choice. Perhaps folks like yourself are unable to make the kinds of crucial distinctions between different types of religious communities in the world. I think that is unfortunate. I think it is an example of crude stereotyping and willful ignorance...but I understand your trepidation and concern. Frank: I'm sorry if it hurts to hear the truth but Christianity does not always bring people together, in many cases it pushes them away.I think I've made it clear from the get-go that I am not defending the abuses of Christianity. I've offered one way to live a Christian life ( agapic radicalism as I've imperfectly shown via Dr. King and Gottlieb's Liberation Faith ) and have tried to make the case that it has been an effective way to protect human dignity, civil rights, social justice and ecological sustainability. I've included a selection from Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail which was written to other Leaders in Christian Churches throughout the South who were adamantly opposed to King's form of discipleship- thus recognizing that there are multiple, conflicting ways to interpret the Bible, organize Churches, and engage the world in love.

[Frank 013]

Quote:Care to show how I've argued that the Christian God should be thrown in anyone's face, or that Dr. King's method of radical agapism, or any of the work exhibited in Gottlieb's Liberating Faith exhibits this tendency?If you adhere to the words of the Bible it is automatic. The entire concept of one god automatically excludes the faith of all others. You don't have to lift a finger for Christianity to become elitist, it is so by its decription. Quote:I've tried to focus this thread on a kind of Christianity that is more interested in how to feed the hungry, house the homeless, protect the biosphere, and honor the dignity of humans as civil beings with rights and liberties worthy of great care and sacrifice....as opposed to a kind of Christianity that is simply interested in claiming universal domination and global adherence to a single theological narrative.Again, Intent is irrelevant, perception is what's important, and by using Christianity you have created a perception which in many cases is not a positive one. It would indeed be nice if people could see intent beyond titles but that is rarely the case.Quote:I think we can go a long way from insulting and throwing God in their faces. Possibly but you might think about first getting rid of all the passages that imply that you should kill all non believers in the light of a jealous god.Quote:Perhaps folks like your self are unable to make the kinds of crucial distinctions between different types of religious communities in the world. I think that is unfortunate. I think it is an example of crude stereotyping and willful ignorance...but I understand your trepidation and concern.I can make the distinctions. Like I have said before your personal beliefs are some of the most non offensive I have ever come across. But that does not change the fact that many people are offended by the common Christian belief system; especially if they know the history of Christianity or have suffered abuse from the church in their life time.Quote:I think I've made it clear from the get-go that I am not defending the abuses of Christianity. I've offered one way to live a Christian life (agapic radicalism as I've imperfectly shown via Dr. King and Gottlieb's Liberation Faith) and have tried to make the case that it has been an effective way to protect human dignity, civil rights, social justice and ecological sustainability.You have made the above clear, but what I am trying to make clear is that all of the above is possible without religion. And without religion it is actually easier because you are not inadvertently alienating large segments of the population. Later Edited by: Frank 013 at: 10/22/06 11:40 pm

[Federika22]

DH:The problem I see with your position is that it is similar to all other christians out there...in that each individual thinks that he or she has the correct interpretation, probably because he or she naturally interprets text in a way that addresses his/her own life. This is a problem when dealing in the realm of things that cannot be monitored by reason. Who can say what is right? And right for whom? The bible itself is against reason. Not only does it contradict itself, it also encourages personal communication/revelation from a supernatural source, and contains stories of people who are punished for being reasonable (the one that comes to mind is the story of Thomas being shamed by Jesus after he said he would only believe in the resurrected christ after seeing him for himself and putting his hands in Jesus's wounds). You know the bible is riddled with violence, contradictions, and other crap, yet somehow you feel the need to keep it around as a sacred source. Maybe you should edit it according to your view and make it easier on everyone. I sincerely have tried to follow the explanations of your viewpoint in an earlier thread, and find you to be intelligent, compassionate, and interesting, but fail to see how you can miss the holes in your christianity. Why do you think that your interpretation of the bible message is correct? And how would you get others (like those attracted to clear-cut rules) to see your perspective and switch from a literalist/semi-literalist reading of the bible to your love-hope-anti-imperialism take? How would you expect most people to ignore the majority of the bible's messages as you do?And, why be a christian to do good works? Edited by: Federika22 at: 10/23/06 1:57 am

[Dissident Heart]

Frank: If you adhere to the words of the Bible it is automatic.I don't think there is one way to adhere to the words of the Bible, and I have tried to shown throughout this thread that there obvious conflicts within Christianity regarding how to approach and interpret Scripture. Again, this is another crucial distinction you are unwilling to make.Frank: The entire concept of one god automatically excludes the faith of all others.Simply claiming faith in one God does not necessarily lead to any sort of exclusivist attitudes or belief systems. It can and does when you erroneously conclude that the only way to understand faith and religion is along triumphalist notions of elite domination and exclusive connections to this one God. (Again, this is a characteristic you share with the religious authoritarians and fanatics). But, as I've stated, there are multiple ways that people from different faiths can learn from and appreciate their unique faith journies, approaching their differences in humility and compassion, with a shared eye on justice, kindness and eoclogical sustainability. I think this was how Dr. King approached the issue, and I know that is how the many examples in Gottlieb's Liberating Faith do as well.Frank: You don't have to lift a finger for Christianity to become elitist, it is so by its decription.Again, care to show how the type of agapic radicalism of Dr. King and Liberating Faith portrays an elitist belief system?Frank: Intent is irrelevant, perception is what's important, and by using Christianity you have created a perception which in many cases is not a positive one.Inention is relevant, just not decisive. Claiming particular values and working to embody them in practice is not resting upon intent. I am far more interested in your deeds than your theories and narratives defining who you are and why you are here. Perception is important, but again, not definitive. Why the misconstrued perceptions of some should determine the values and deeds of others is something you might want to consider. I am offering an actual, not theoretical, way of living as a Christian (in solidarity with many others from multiple religious traditions). If the misperceptions of others are unable to make the appropriate distinctions between this way of life and others who claim similar names, I can only hope more intelligent folk will assist in clearing up the confusion....and not add to it.Frank: Possibly but you might think about first getting rid of all the passages that imply that you should kill all non believers in the light of a jealous god.But that would eliminate what is human and real about the Bible. It is not a whitewashed vision of blissful holidays, but a terribly accurate portrait of human violence and cruelty; as well as moral wisdom and courageous love. Again, you seem to agree with the fanatics when they say there is only one way to approach and interpret the text. I happen to agree with a very long history of interpretation that sees the text with different lenses for different purposes. These different lenses and purposes are simply arbitrarily lifted out of thin air. They are rooted in tradition, reason, moral insight, the political demands of the present, as well as poetic imagination and and aesthetic sensibility.Frank: that does not change the fact that many people are offended by the common Christian belief system; especially if they know the history of Christianity or have suffered abuse from the church in their life time.And many are not offended when they see it is not simply a superstitious band of deadly yahoos running rampant across history and the planet. They might also discover many others who have assisted, helped, protected and brought great value, meaning and beauty to their personal lives, political struggle and ecological sustainability. I understand the difficulty in people overcoming the trauma of past abuses. A first and important step is for Christians to speak up, take responsibility and work to hold themselves accountable for abuses commited by their Church and in their name. I think that is something Dr. King's form of discipleship does very well and is modelled throughout Gottlieb's Liberating Faith.Another step involves those who know better to make the crucial distinctions when they understand the differences.Frank: I am trying to make clear is that all of the above is possible without religion. And without religion it is actually easier because you are not inadvertently alienating large segments of the population.I don't think it is possible, not without simply eliminating or silencing the vast number of religious people. You are demanding that something profoundly human, an inescapable part of human experience (for good and bad) be ignored, avoided, and denied out of existence. I think that is impossible. I think it can be and must be a part of seeking justice and finding ecological sanity for our world. I think the kind of agapic radicalism I've offered in this thread is one way to do it. Religious people are not going away, nor are they going to shut up because you disagree with them. They are going to bring their values and agendas and hopes and fears into the public square and political arena. You can wish them all away (or maybe, as alluded to another thread, eliminate them) or you can find allies and build allegiences with those that share similar goals and visions for the good society.

[irishrosem]

Quote:I don't think I've made any claim to a triumphalist Christian claim to universal exclusive rights of God, truth, morality or beauty, etc. I've tried to focus this thread on a kind of Christianity that is more interested in how to feed the hungry, house the homeless, protect the biosphere, and honor the dignity of humans as civil beings with rights and liberties worthy fo great care and sacrifice....as opposed to a kind of Christianity that is simply interested in claiming universal domination and global adherence to a single theological narrative.I read this and thought, we're just arguing over semantics here. DH wants the same thing I do, but what I consider to be basic human interest, DH considers to be Christian interest. If he is asserting no specific god or text, where is the issue?Then I read the following:Quote:I think a crucial link to the kind of Christianity this thread points to is found in this section of Matthew, where the children of God are confused as to when they were serving God: Quote: the righteous will answer God, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' If you include this as part of your goal for global peace (I'd be happy with a global cease fire) then you are alienating more than half the world population. It's just not possible to assume Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, pagans, atheists, are going to be o.k. with your invocation of God and scripture toward your cause. You keep claiming that a distinction must be made between your view as explained here and fundamentalist religions. But there is no distinction required if you use Christian doctrine as an explanation/inspiration for your arguments. The text is where the problem Frank and I are discussing lies. An agapic worldview, sure; a religious agapic worldview, not so much.

[irishrosem]

I'm having a devil of a time posting this so I am going to try and do it in two parts. I think the problem is I tend to quote a lot of the post that I am responding to because I tend to appreciate context. If this isn't necessary, and is a concern for space on the board, please someone let me know.I was away this weekend and, unfortunately, missed a bit of this conversation but I'll address what DH wrote in response to me on Friday.Quote:Me: Patience, sympathy, empathy, humor, and the ability to walk away with a good conscience free of resentment. irishrose: And what then has been accomplished? I think a great deal is accomplished, considering the power of resentment to fuel the passions for revenge and retribution. I suppose the impact is largely upon oneself- keeping one free of the obsession and animosity that can linger and fester into outright retaliation. Dr. King's Christianity demands profound self discipline: the ability to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, touch the leper, pray for and love your enemies. I think this kind of agapic radicalism would be an invaluable approach to ending blood feuds, tribal retribution, and other intractable cycles of violence.To be fair, when I wrote the above question, you had responded to Frank's question of how would you deal with people who will discount your views and opinions just because you are Christian. I still don't feel you have answered his question or mine. Nothing is accomplished, except, as you say, upon yourself being able to "walk away" "free of resentment." But you would have to walk away without making any progress. You speak of Christian agapic radicalism as being "an invaluable approach to ending blood feuds, tribal retribution." But when you speak of blood feuds and tribal retribution I assume you are speaking of the Islamic Middle East. How do you think bringing Christian ideology is going to help the issues of the Middle East? Do you think dropping Christian doctrine among these people is really going to positively progress the issue in any way? The only way that is going to happen is if you convert them all, which I am sure you know is unlikely to occur. Of course, your idea is nice, if the whole world is indoctrinated under one religion then there would be less violence. Or we could work towards eliminating the indoctrination altogether with the same results with regard to violence.Quote:As for placing orphaned, or displaced, or abandoned, or abused children into Christian homes, I won't deny there are those who do so out of a desire to proselytize and make converts. Considering the extreme demands and enormous emotional costs in such endeavors, I don't see the conversion payoff as clearly as you assert. I think it has more to do with an ethical obligation rooted deep in the Judeo-Christian worldview that demands care, protection and service to the neediest and most vulnerable in society. As I said before, whether they take children into their homes to convert or just to help, the indoctrinating influence is still an effect. I continue to argue that religion shouldn't be part of the equation. And you haven't really yet argued that it should be, just that the intent of the Christians involved isn't necessarily to convert. Quote:I think the more radical nature of King's kind of Christianity is a revolutionary vision for a different society: one that is not determined by economic systems that dismantle families, neighborhoods and communities into greedy self-maximizers adrift in a commodified world where everything and everyone has a price and can be bought, sold and thrown away. Everything you stated here is possible without religious influence.Quote:If his example is worthy of emulation, his method is paramount to the discussion. His method is captured in the first post of this thread, and is a consistent, primary theme throughout his life's work. For him, and the very many who took him seriously when he spoke as a child of God, his agapic radicalism was integral and not peripheral or supplemental, but foundational.Let me clarify that when I speak of MLK's example, I mean the lesson he taught, even lived, of peaceful civil disobedience; I am not speaking of his life as a whole as an example. As I said before, I don't know that much of his life. With that clarification, I disagree that if MLK's example is worthy of emulation then his method must be "paramount to the discussion." I think Woody Allen makes very funny films where the male protagonist often falls in love with a much younger woman. I, however, don't think his real life method of falling in love with his wife's adopted daughter should be part of his lesson to filmmakers. I think Eugene O'Neill wrote lovely dramas about families and suffering, I don't think his method of using alcoholism to elicit those dramas is a lesson for playwrights. I think Henry Ford developed a key part of current mass production which makes things affordable. I don't think his racism and his view that people are expendable on a human level and can become part of a mindless machine is a method to be valued. There are many key contributors to society whose methods are often suspect. Just because you value MLK's method to acquiring his ability for civil disobedience doesn't mean that I do, nor that we need to.