matteoam

Pete it was you saying syncretism is picking and choosing. That is a superficial and inaccurate definition of the term. There were references to influences of other philosophical ideas on Paul. Fine. There are suggestions that all religions have something syncretic about it. Fine too. There are more factors at work when syncretism occurs. It is not even something that can always be evidenced. I think life is and always was and will be very complex when it comes to the evolution of belief systems. I would live to see a detailed deconstruction on Paul's theology and explicit evidence of Paul's syncretism as opposed to his contextualization of use Greek philosophical terminology. The suggestions concerning Paul's syncretism are generally stated. Maybe I'm expecting too much. I think has an important relation to the why question of Jesus being born. There are different reasons by most Christians. I think PC is not a form of belief that deals more with the how of life than with the why. Pete are you critical of syncretism in Christianity? IWhat's wrong with it? How is it so bad for people finding hope in life? From my own experience PCers I know personally feel that PC in its essence is a return to a purity in Jesus' words and actions. Just the ones I know. Nothing could be further from the truth to me but so what? Let people believe what they will if it helps them get through the day?

Nothing wrong with picking and choosing but that is not syncretism. I'm just saying if a term is used it should be used properly.

That makes sense Pete. But is it so simplistic as Steve suggests? Picking and choosing? The response is what I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian. Syncretism as Steve suggests is not so superficial. That implies to me an insult to the modern syncretic religions of today - Santeria etc.. It also demeans the intelligence of PCers who question the traditions of Christianity. Why is syncretism do bad? What is the pure tradition that one who is against it holds? My issue is with the criticism that PC is syncretic which I font think it is. Applying the term is anachronistic. There is no new religion being created in PC as Steve implies. PC doesn't quite get to the basis of Jesus' teaching either. It is a response to mainline Protestantism in its failed liberal social teachings.

Pete please be specific on what you mean. Give me examples. If that is true then how is this syncretic?

Paul was a Hellinistic Jew. Some believe that he used his knowledge of Epicurus to make some of his arguments, using the same terminology but not in a syncretic way but like he spoke against the unknown god in Athens he contextualized it to redefine it. That is not the same way that say someone who practices Santeria looks at St Lazarus as Babalu Aye.

I get your point norm but frankly I have never heard one scholar who is against Christianity ever speak about Paul being syncretic. In Galatians Paul asks the community to sort out the confusion that may be syncretism. The same in Colossians. And in Acts 14 and 19. And in 1 Corinthians 5. Here he speaks against it. It sounds here in this conversation like the argument that Paul was syncretic that he took Judaism and used it to create Christianity, that to me has no grounding. Paul was not a Christian as we all see Christianity to be today. That religion did not exist and did not start to exist until well into the 1st century with the church fathers who were syncretic. Again show me a passage(s) where Paul is syncretic.

I think you're right in the opinion that the disciples remained in their tradition. What does Jesus not starting a religion have to do with syncretism? Also if you read Acts 9 as a linear narrative there seems to be a contradiction but maybe it is a fragmented account chronologically. I am not a biblical scholar but I don't see the contradiction as the narrative seems fragmented to me but not contradictory. I'm saying this not to harmonize the accounts. I really don't look at the gospels or the letters of the NT like that. I see them as mostly occassionsal accounts of Jesus and the disciples as well as theological explanations of people's experience of Jesus. I can see his the church fathers to change the subject as being anachronistic and even syncretic. But so what? In the context of the experience of the Divine as well as the necessity of forming communities and surviving in the face of peril there may be the need to contextualization the experience of Jesus. Again where is the syncretism in Paul?

Strange about the link as I accessed once then couldn't then could again. True that the gospels were not written but there was enough known about Jesus to influence Paul and others and enough of a belief to compel him to do what he did. Remember he also spent time in Arabia - though it is unclear how long, and that he met with the other apostles. I don't see Paul's handwork in the gospels themselves and I ask for any proof that he had anything to go with their construction. Despite all that I think his speech about the unknown god (Acts 17) is more contextualization than syncretism. I think it is disingenuous to dismiss Paul as he is the precursor to the Christianity of the church fathers. Despite any for or against him he is a powerful thinker who had a profound spiritual experience who tried to make sense if it in his life. I see no syncretism nj his writing. If you do please point not out to me regardless of your dismissal of him as being relevant.

Okay Pete but you're not specifying Paul's syncretism. Are you saying that Paul applied pagan belief to Judaism? Are you implying that Paul essential imagined the gospels? Now check this article out on the subject of Judaism and syncretism Bad Link And even if it were true why is syncretism bad? Isn't it an inevitable result of cultures and peoples meeting and intermingling? So what if something new is created? Isn't one man's evolution another man's revelation?

It's always been unclear any syncretism on Paul's part. He like Jesus always remained a Jew. Paul as I read him tries to make the gospel more inclusive for Gentiles. The traces of Greek philosophy in Paul - not the early church fathers - are not apparent to me.

Steve, you write: "It seems to me that Progressive Christianity is perhaps syncretic, picking and choosing among various doctrines, and even borrowing from other traditions. One then attempts to understand Christianity in a manner that comfortably fits an individuals personal experience of reality. But, since beliefs are left to the individual, they cannot be consistently applied among all Christians." Religious syncretism is not a matter of picking and choosing. "Syncretism is the combining of different, often seemingly contradictory beliefs, while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths." Santeria, Voodoo, Palo Mayombe and other similitude religions which are syncretic were not evolved from a picking and choosing. They are all as valid in their beliefs and empirical truths too as any other traditions. Not that any criticism was made in your statement. Syncretism is usually used in a negative way by people who display an exclusivistv approach to their own religion. But I think exclusivity is itself an anachronistic approach. But I don't think so. For me syncretism is a form of monistic thinking and an example of the Divine radiating like the sun penetrating through darkness. I welcome syncretism in all its forms.

Daniel Respectfully don't analyze in these encounters. That's grace. You're a chosen fellow. Matteo

"Have any of the fathers really advocated Universalism? I'd love universalism to be true, but I just don't know. For example, muslim fundamentalism is just as bad as christian fundamentalism. Or hindu fundamentalism. Or pagan fundamentalism." Universalism has its origins in the early church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. The term they used is "apocatastasis" which is a restoration of all things to its original state. The concept is used in other ways by pre-Christian philosophy (the Stoics mostly - who the more I read up on the more I agree with on many things). The notion though of Christian Universalism is diverse amongst Protestants. Some think that Hell doesn't exist. Some think that Hell does but is a place of purification of one's sinful nature that once completed will lead to salvation. Of course, universalism is a theory, like all the other theories which fall under the heading of "theology." If you go to the Eastern religions, specifically Hinduism - which is not really a religion, but more of an umbrella term for a diversity of religious and philosophical movements, there is the notion that all religions are true and lead to god. All religions also have some level of error inherent in them. The Hindus also believe, more of less, that the universe will end, all the gods will die as well, and everything will start all over. Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is the only eternal thing - but Brahman's not even that. Buddhism seems to reject the notion of Brahman, more or less, but some forms of Buddhism incorporate concepts that resemble Brahman. It seems that the whole theory of universalism is engrained in a theistic worldview, where the Supreme Being is so loving and merciful that all its creation will be reconciled to itself. I personally see no reason why it can't be true, though it is not something that can be "proved" unless there is empirical evidence in the form of love, mercy, compassion, justice, peace, gratitude, selflessness. To me these things, these qualities which make us human are built into to the material universe in a way, despite the seeming opposites of these that we experience. ​I would stick to whatever works for you, sky seeker, and live your life accordingly. If you don't deliberate hurt others or yourself, it doesn't really matter what you believe.

I have not read the book but have heard the topic in other contexts. I have a three and a half year old boy and a newborn. I am not financially affluent or well off but have provided my 3yo with an stable and safe environment with "stuff" but don't think I spoil him. I have seen the normal stages of his ego developing so all is "mine" especially when it comes to his new brother as well as with playing with other children on his turf. I try to nip this in the butt so to speak by trying to emphasize that his "stuff" is only his to the extent that he shares it. He is obligated to share. I try to counter his more selfish tendencies by countering them with the modicum of reason that "other children don't have this or that" which is why he needs to share. What is "his" is not entitled to. I am also seeing his eagerness to help with chores with me or my spouse. I use this as a precursor for instilling his ability to earn money - a quarter if he helps me do this or that. I hope to instill in him over the few years the sense of the value of money. Sort of how John D Rockefeller was raised to value money's worth and instill charity in my son in relation to giving "his" money as his entitlement to it has its limits. I hope this is relevant to the conversation as an opinion.

Haribol Thank you for this message. I have found this article very interesting. http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/hinduismandscience.html

Roman Actually don't bother answering the question because it's a waste of time for both of us. You believe what you will and vice versa it seems that you haven't really thought about one thing I've said.

What evidence of the paranormal are you looking for? Be specific.

I do not suggest that scientists "should" do anything. No wait. I don't mean that. What I think they should do is not pass judgment if they are not ready, willing and able to utilize their tools of "empirical authority" about subjects they have no desire to know anything about and what they cannot prove or disprove. Now, those other fundamentalists who are spiritual can do the same thing.

It may be absurd to you but that is just you demonstrating your ignorance. That is scientism in a nutshell.

Paul That's a good point. It's also hardcore materialists who don't want to explore the possibility that spirituality is "true" or "real". I don't know what type of empirical study could be done to prove God. That personally doesn't interest me. Science cannot prove nor disprove religious beliefs. It's what is restricted in their study that is the issue. Paranormal activity is not proof of God. But I think a serious study of these topics would or should address types of experience: Cognitive Experience (which would include Sense Experience, Discursive Reasoning, Intuitive Apprehension); Psychic Experience; Aesthetic Experience; Ethical Experience; Religious Experience. How a collective interdisciplinary body of thinkers from Dawkins-types to Chopra-types get over themselves and be humble and willing enough to work together and agree on some extensive and detailed and harmonious hypothesis to start from is beyond me. I wonder if anyone really cares. Too many people have too much invested (economically and in their self-identity) to pursue this as they have too much to lose if they are perceived to stray from their pack or if they are proven wrong. Aldo what evidence will be expected? It's a nice idea but will always be marginalized. Groups will do what work they do but the divides will always remain.

I do think the majority of scientists would hesitate to study what is termed the "paranormal". I for one don't think that "the data" which "proves" NDEs, and psychic phenomena prove anything, but I also think that a more involved interdisciplinary study is needed. I have personally been in the company of people who have experienced things which I cannot explain, but I am still a skeptic. If I don't have a personal experience of it, I cannot say whether it exists or not. I am completely open to the possibility of it. I also don't know what the experience of it means. I have seen the value it has given those people. I also know there are crackpots and charlatans out there which need to be exposed for their delusions and for their dishonesty.

Here's the thing which continues my last post. Feeding my newborn at off hours gives me to log on and comment because that's the time I have to interact. So Dawkins and Chopra comment on religion at the end and I agree with both. I agree that Dawkins resorts to ad hominen arguments which to me is sign that you have no real argument. I think Dawkins is wrong when he criticizes people who are religious as having "blind faith". Some probably do. But I think he makes generalizations that have no validity. Likewise Chopr's views are a distillation of views for today's consumer culture about philosophies that have been around for thousands of years. This to me points so whiny that needs to addressed and not dismissed by the "scientific" community if they are as empirical and objective as they claim to be. I have yet to see a truly unbiased scientific study not critique a study of issues related to spiritusl or religious beliefs. A simple application of "scientific empirical study" to various disciplines simply for its own sake like guys like Pinker recommends to me is a reflection of that philosophical scientism which is rooted in materialistic monism and honestly is reminiscent of Democritus. So I guess its nothing new. That being said the science that Dawkins is an advocate of is valid in its true discoveries or explanations but he doesn't seem to be willing to really use what he rejects in Chopras philosophy as a hypothesis and investigate it dying his own (Dawkins' own) methods. Maybe he can't but I sense too that people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris DO NOT WANT to. That being said with all THAT I AGREE WITH THEM on they limit themselves. They're observations about the brain and consciousness are valid. But they don't know if that is all there is. They appeal to their own authority as the final authority. They go against their own claims if being scientific by their own definitions. If they were honest they would be open to ALL possibilities no matter how absurd. And they are not. I am not talking about their perceived results (their critique of religious fundamentalism) either. I refer to the nature if the perenniel philosophy (Huxley and others) and the material results from having these beliefs. They don't seem to be willing to walk the walk.

I love this conversation. I agree with both of them on many points. My feet are firmly grounded planted in both views. I can't say either is completely wrong or completely right. The conversation goes deeper than religion too. It involves all aspects of politics, economics, and cultures.

Something I think I failed to affirm in the video clip is the sense of hope. I don't think one can ever overcome human suffering so long as we remain human. We can endure it with hope. To me I don't care what anyone has "hope in" (meaning a God or the human ability to reason and overcome obstacles). I hope that human beings can come together to get along to the extent that they can put aside their differences and eccentricities and do what needs to be done (to the extent that it will fail as all human endeavors do) to deal with suffering at its root or the expressions or attributes. I hope that rational monists and scientismists are as good and reasonable and hopeful in the human endeavor as they claim to be. I hope that they are not as affected by the virus of cynicism to the extent that they compromise their own ethics, values and morals. I hope they do not reduce humanity to the extent that they enter the threshold of nihilism. Same goes for those on the other side of the argument of course.

Not sure if anything needs to be added to this conversation. My bottle line thought is that when proponents of science think science is the only tool to measure wverything and attribute value to it then that is scientism. It is also materialist monism but maybe my understanding of that philosophic discipline is not complete. It is a misinterpretation of science which from little I know of its history led to social Darwinism, which I presume to be a very very very big distortion of Darwin's theories. I just don't think that science has anything to say about metaphysics, the humanities, and spirituality. These are disciplines that cannot be measured or determined empirically. They are the arena of a human faculty of the imagination and volition. But whatever people think whatever the hell they want. I don't really care. Just don't impose your opinions on me as genuine authority.