Jump to content

It's All About Us


David
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fatherman says,

 

“When I was in the School of Education at OU, my teachers taught us a new way to speak about people. They called it Person First language. Person with a disability. Person of color. Person FIRST. Let's use Obama's model for the use of pronouns to change the way we speak and think today. I challenge you to consider Us First Language. Let's say goodbye to 'them' and acknowledge that there is only Us in this world. Those of Us who are black and those of Us who are white. Those of Us who are Republican and those of Us who are Democrat. Those of Us who are men and those of Us who are women. Those of Us who are gay and those of Us who are straight. Those of Us who are Muslim and those of Us who are Christian. Those of Us who are American's and those of Us who are Iraqis. It's all US.

 

So next time someone is bashing black people, you can begin your response by saying "Those of us who are black..." The next time someone is bashing gay folks, you can begin with "Those of us who are gay..."

 

Stand on the side of the oppressed. Stand on the side of the oppressor, as well.

 

"Those of us who have hated..."

"Those of us who have perpetrated violence..."

"Those of us who have started wars..."

 

It's ALL ABOUT US.”

 

DavidK says:

 

“As Christians it is by faith that we love others. Because they are made in the image of God, we shall make no distinctions for race or class. And that is because God said it was to be so. So: It's all about God.”

 

You will find this exchange under the title “It’s All About Us” in the Progressive portion of the Forum. My response to DavidK was that he did not belong in that part of the Forum and I was not going to debate the reasons why his latest post and most all of his posts differ significantly from progressive thinking within the protected area of this Forum. This is a housekeeping matter and I have suggested to TCPC that since DavidK does not understand what part of the house he can be in that he not be able to post again.

 

I am switching the discussion to the debate portion so that we can debate the issues. I have lately made it a rule not to debate with DavidK based upon epistemological concerns. We can not effectively communicate because we experience “how we know” so much differently. But others read these posts who may still be trying to decide on appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity and DavidK may get some insight into the problem if this is debated in the debate section.

 

It is symbolic that DavidK changed the whole message from “It’s all about us” to “It’s all about God”. Fatherman suggests that there is an “USness” out there that I would suggest includes those who are represented by DavidK and those who are represented by TCPC (and everyone for that matter). However, many of those who are represented by DavidK can not see that “USness” without saying that this is dependent upon a belief in a god that created humanity in an “image” that can be explained in the Bible. For those who are represented by DavidK this is the case because this super/separate god “said it was to be so”. The whole emphasis goes from finding God in our midst within our own experience to a god who somehow set up the rules a long time ago so that our only job is to know and follow those rules. “How we know” becomes a matter of looking to the Bible for that super/separate god and it is “by faith” that we love others. For these folks it is “all about god”. Compare this with Fatherman who suggests that it is all about finding that “USness” (the question of what part the Divine plays in this is not a prerequisite understanding for the experience itself).

 

The fact that DavidK and all those who are represented by DavidK are included in that “USness” creates an issue raised by Fatherman. When do we “stand on the side of fundamentalism”? Certainly it is possible to see that progressives can “oppress” fundamentalists. How is it appropriate to “stand with them”? My response is that we need to create “safe places”. We need “safe places” where we can stand with fundamentalists where neither their fundamentalism nor our progressive thinking prevents the “USness” from happening. There are places to do that and I think Obama’s inauguration was one such place. Certainly many social action projects are another place. Certainly "being civil" with each other is also such a place (I can see that sometimes I am not as "civil" with DavidK as I should be).

 

However, the fact that DavidK could not see where progressives would disagree with him shows the huge epistemological problem and shows why we can not “do Church together”. The two Davids can not effectively communicate and this shows why we need a protected and supportive area for progressives to talk to each other without having to debate those who are represented by DavidK. Progressives need a “safe place” to be progressive. There are appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

My post was in support of OU and Fatherman in their efforts to personalize in order to see the person rather than an object one could offhandedly dismiss. Apparently the point at which we differed was saying that as Christians we believe God wants us to see others as persons, or not. If TCPC sees that as significantly different from progressive thought, I will gladly accept TCPC's discipline.

There was no intent to challenge or violate anyones sensibilities. However, if my mere presence does, that is something you may have to bear. The rule says that I can be supportive regardless of any differences. If you can enumerate them from my post, I agree this would be the more appropriate forum.

 

In addition, there are those here who insist progressives don't have a theology, yet I don't believe you should be banned for insisting on the existence of progressive theologians.

 

The problem finding answers in those experiences, starting with man, is that finite man is an insufficient source.

If one cannot consider propositional revelation from the infinite-personal God, Biblical answers will be incomprehensible.

 

Earlier you gave me a warning, now I shall give you one: every human problem arises from man's trying to make something autonomous from God.

Nothing is to be autonomous from God. That includes knowing, meaning, and values, and morals, all of which are bound by God as much as the outward world.

 

As a Christian approaches another person, Christian or not, he has has a starting place from which to know the person in a way that non-christians do not have, because he knows who the person is, he is made in the image of God, that's who he is, that's who he really is. In that regard, I am an "usness" supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As a Christian approaches another person, Christian or not, he has has a starting place from which to know the person in a way that non-christians do not have, because he knows who the person is, he is made in the image of God, that's who he is, that's who he really is. In that regard, I am an "usness" supporter.

 

Baloney! You are nothing more than a Christian Bigot.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidK,

 

Thank you for your response. I wanted to give you the opportunity to do that while making the point that you crossed a boundary. I commend you on being civil.

 

You can not see that in your attempt to support the post from Fatherman that you could not support it with the tools that you are using. You had to change the whole meaning of what was being said to fit within your “faith prior to loving” framework. You apparently still do not understand that you crossed a boundary. What I am saying is that you can not be supportive with these tools even with your best intentions of trying to be supportive. I have always seen you basically as a “good person” who intends well. But it is not your intent that can enable you to cross the boundary. The boundary is real and I am suggesting insurmountable given the huge difference in epistemology.

 

I am glad that you are an “USness” supporter. We do it for different reasons. We do it using the same words with different meanings. But if we can do it then “USness” wins. In your mind this is what your god wants. That’s ok with me. When we can find those "safe" places it makes no difference to me. But there is the boundary. You crossed the boundary and do not understand why. This makes you unable to respect the boundary and brings your continued posting into question.

 

David

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I appreciate your diligence and I respect your argument. I agree with you and Autumn that debate was not designed for the other board. Supporting a position, regardless of its foundation, is all the message board required. I agree if you want debate, it should be here. This is, apparently, where we are allowed the latitude to wontonly provoke. (see: Minsocal's post)

 

I am in support of FM's premise of non-descrimination, I have spoken to that, and to which my "tools" are perfectly amenable. If they were not, then I could not. Since I do, it is unreasonable to think otherwise. It is really quite a presumptuous insult for you say that what I believe cannot support loving our fellow man.

 

Based on the posts of other progressives I don't see that FM's conclusion could have survived with only backslapping approval and without some honest form of discussion from other progressives; for another progressive has already said in his previous posts that "there is only God". Had he penned "it's all about God" instead, it could have been similarly supportive of FM's premise while not of the conclusion and it would have been totally consistent with his history of posts. However, I suspect he would not have been likewise threatened with expulsion for provoking a debate or crossing some undefined epistemological boundary.

 

Having different epistemologies is not foriegn to progressive thought, particularly on these boards. Some don't believe they have or even need one, while others are so diverse from each other it's difficult to find any real definition of one in progressive belief. With such broad acceptance of other religious and philosophical epistemologies and diverse thought, how do you determine who has crossed what boundary? Is the only one you reject the one that believes in Biblical truth? Or if it is only the one you have chosen, I fear, despite your passion and other general reasonableness, you may have nothing to stand on in this.

 

Respectfully,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the suggestion laid down by Fatherman. I have to admit, this will take a bit of time.

 

"Those of us who have been bigoted Christians ... "

 

"Those of us who have turned away homosexuals ... "

 

"Those of us who have put down Buddhism ... "

 

"Those of us who have put down Muslims ... "

 

"Those of us who have fostered patriarchy ... "

 

"Those of us who have rejected egalitarianism ... "

 

As I understand Fatherman, as I understand Jesus, "us" refers to a global meaning of "us" with NO PRIORITY GIVEN BY GOD!

 

Or did I just not understand anything about the post ?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

With such broad acceptance of other religious and philosophical epistemologies and diverse thought, how do you determine who has crossed what boundary?

 

Respectfully,

David

Well the easy way is to identify those who do not have such a broad acceptance. In other words the easy way is to “exclude those that exclude”.

 

What I am suggesting is more difficult for progressives to accept and I accept that I am probably in the minority with my opinion. My suggestion is that there is such a vast epistemological divide between fundamentalists and progressives that it is pointless to attempt to have a big enough tent to include both. Fundamentalists will always insist that you must first believe the correct things. Progressives will not insist on correct belief in order to experience Grace or the Divine. It is within that experience that progressives come to “know” Grace or the Divine. It is only after the experience that we will try to put it into words knowing all the time that words will not be able to do the experience justice. These are such two fundamentally different ways of approaching “religious experience” that it seems to me that we can not “do church together”.

 

This recent exchange has symbolized the problem. DavidK has again been a great symbol (thank you). You can not understand the problem because of the tools that you are using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boundaries are crossed when any person or group seeks to dictate the behavior of others who, in fact, are no harm to themselves or to others. The harm-care dimension is relegated in conservative views in favor of in-group loyalty and a "them versus us" mentality. The radical egalitarianism of Jesus and Paul wipes out in-group loyalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boundaries are crossed when any person or group seeks to dictate the behavior of others who, in fact, are no harm to themselves or to others. The harm-care dimension is relegated in conservative views in favor of in-group loyalty and a "them versus us" mentality. The radical egalitarianism of Jesus and Paul wipes out in-group loyalties.

Well “harm” is very difficult to understand. Is it harmful to call someone a bigot? It may not have been “intended” as harmful but it may have been received as harmful. When this is combined with “them/us” and stays within the personal dimension then I would suggest that much harm can be done with or without intention. I would suggest that boundaries, if necessary, be looked at in a less personal way in an attempt to avoid harm.

 

The recent discussion provides focus. Rather than trying to personalize the issue and trying to decide whether DavidK can or can not post in the protected area based upon whether he is or is not a bigot or whether he is or is not respectful or whether he listens well or not or whether he is personally this or that---- a better way is to make a rule that is not so personal dependent. The rule is that “if you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here, please do not use this area to challenge, debate or provoke.”

 

What I am suggesting is that we have a similar rule when progressives want to “do church”. Such a rule may be “if you find that you must have some form of ‘correct belief’ before you can experience Grace or the Divine, then you probably will be happier at the many churches in town that will support you. Please only consider joining us if you find that you experience the Divine first with your experience and then struggle with words”. That seems to me to be a much better approach than trying to determine whether someone is a bigot or not.

 

Again I admit that I am in the minority here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well “harm” is very difficult to understand. Is it harmful to call someone a bigot? It may not have been “intended” as harmful but it may have been received as harmful. When this is combined with “them/us” and stays within the personal dimension then I would suggest that much harm can be done with or without intention. I would suggest that boundaries, if necessary, be looked at in a less personal way in an attempt to avoid harm.

 

The recent discussion provides focus. Rather than trying to personalize the issue and trying to decide whether DavidK can or can not post in the protected area based upon whether he is or is not a bigot or whether he is or is not respectful or whether he listens well or not or whether he is personally this or that---- a better way is to make a rule that is not so personal dependent. The rule is that “if you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here, please do not use this area to challenge, debate or provoke.”

 

What I am suggesting is that we have a similar rule when progressives want to “do church”. Such a rule may be “if you find that you must have some form of ‘correct belief’ before you can experience Grace or the Divine, then you probably will be happier at the many churches in town that will support you. Please only consider joining us if you find that you experience the Divine first with your experience and then struggle with words”. That seems to me to be a much better approach than trying to determine whether someone is a bigot or not.

 

Again I admit that I am in the minority here.

 

Boundaries are, by definition personal. Davidk has told me I cannot be a Christian. He has told me God rejects homosexuals. Davidk has insisted only he has the true Christian epistemology. That is the definition of "bigotry". I make no excuses for my claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, boundary by definition is not personal. You experience boundaries daily. You can not decide as a person which side of the street to drive on. Certainly boundaries involve persons but boundaries in their best sense are designed to help keep people safe by not making decisions on a “case by case” basis. This very nature of boundaries can make boundaries insensitive to the person and “exceptions”. It is also possible to have "bad" boundaries that are meant to have personal harm. They can do this by "hiding behind" the non personal nature of boundaries. But no, boundary by definition is not personal.

 

I did not argue with your perception of DavidK as a bigot (my more sympathetic view is that he is dealing with the tools that he has). I only suggested that it may be harmful to call DavidK a bigot rather than to look for those appropriate boundaries.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, boundary by definition is not personal. You experience boundaries daily. You can not decide as a person which side of the street to drive on. Certainly boundaries involve persons but boundaries in their best sense are designed to help keep people safe by not making decisions on a “case by case” basis. This very nature of boundaries can make boundaries insensitive to the person and “exceptions”. It is also possible to have "bad" boundaries that are meant to have personal harm. They can do this by "hiding behind" the non personal nature of boundaries. But no, boundary by definition is not personal.

 

I did not argue with your perception of DavidK as a bigot (my more sympathetic view is that he is dealing with the tools that he has). I only suggested that it may be harmful to call DavidK a bigot rather than to look for those appropriate boundaries.

 

We are social animals and boundaries are thus both personal and social. There is the invasion of my personal autonomy and the invasion of an in-group's autonomy. Both are boundary violations. Both are harmful. When you experience the violation in both senses, you obtain a different perspective. I have friends who write about triple boundary violations ... they are Buddhist, gay, and Asian ... they are black, female, and lesbian. They simply report what psychologists have confirmed ... these are the people treated as "the least" among us. Listen to their story. Listen to Jesus. Same thing.

 

As an aside, let me say this about Jen. In some other cultures, Jen would be revered and not shunned. The Healer, the Shamon, Jesus ... all know the same thing. Bring them, bring them all, back to society.

 

BTW ... if davidk HAS the tools to do otherwise, we have a very different issue. He clearly HAS the tools or I could not even entertain a discussion. He has the tools allright, and you can find davidk on any progressive message board. The technique is the same no matter where you find it.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you are still describing boundaries as not personal. When people are treated as a group (Buddhist, Gay, Asian, etc) they are being treated within boundaries which are not personal. It is the very non personal nature of the boundary that can result in the treatment that you describe because people can "hide behind" the boundary which is not personal. Again boundaries can be “bad”. They can be designed to treat people as “the least”. But in doing so they are always not personal even though they can do much personal harm. So again I would suggest that you are wrong. Boundaries are not personal. But boundaries can also be good as I have suggested. This all applies to DavidK, to Jen, to you and to me.

 

BTW...you and I do not see DavidK in the same way. I see no evidence that his postings reflect anything but the tools that he has to work with.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you are still describing boundaries as not personal. When people are treated as a group (Buddhist, Gay, Asian, etc) they are being treated within boundaries which are not personal. It is the very non personal nature of the boundary that can result in the treatment that you describe because people can "hide behind" the boundary which is not personal. Again boundaries can be “bad”. They can be designed to treat people as “the least”. But in doing so they are always not personal even though they can do much personal harm. So again I would suggest that you are wrong. Boundaries are not personal. But boundaries can also be good as I have suggested. This all applies to DavidK, to Jen, to you and to me.

 

It seems to me you are unable to grasp what I am saying. SOME PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES IN THE CONTEXT OF A GROUP AND SOME THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE CONCEPT IS ANCIENT. One group is called extraverted and the other group is called introverted. And, as I have already said ad nauseum ... we will have to wait for an epistemolgy that does justice to both.

 

I am gay, I was married in a church and yes, that IS personal. VERY, VERY personal.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me you are unable to grasp what I am saying. SOME PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES IN THE CONTEXT OF A GROUP AND SOME THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE CONCEPT IS ANCIENT. One group is called extraverted and the other group is called introverted. And, as I have already said ad nauseum ... we will have to wait for an epistemolgy that does justice to both.

 

I am gay, I was married in a church and yes, that IS personal. VERY, VERY personal.

If I am having trouble understanding what you are saying it is at least in part because you haved used words without their common understanding. Within this thread I am trying to talk about appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. I’m not clear whether you are talking about the same thing. All of a sudden….epistemology for introverts and extroverts? Perhaps there are others who see what you are saying and can help me understand. I admit that I am losing part of my mind as I get older—so anyone out there--can you help me out here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I appreciate your honesty even though the logic of the argument is a little shy of adequate. I understand that you feel I believe things should be believed rather than experienced to make it valid. Whether I disagree or not, the point you have made is that your belief is that you must believe in your correct belief as opposed to mine. This is the very ciriticism you have made of me. Minsocal follows suit. The difficulty is that that cannot be rationalized. Much the same as excluding the excluders; is it that I should exclude you or vice-versa? Who then is the hypocrite? The Progressivist or the Fundamentalist. It is the same problem either way. The broad acceptance, except for "them", is the very problem the Jews had when applying the command to love your neighbor, except for the Gentiles. On this board, who is developing the "us vs. him" scenario?

 

If God created all things, why would you think it unreasonable to say He made the rules whereby we can exist in and experience His creation? What is it that makes that so unthinkable? Wouldn't He know the best way for us to be fulfilled in and by His creation? Wouldn't you think He could tell us how, and why?

 

I hope that you also may use the tools you have been given.

---

Minsocal,

For you to come here and say I have said such things:

Davidk has told me I cannot be a Christian. He has told me God rejects homosexuals. Davidk has insisted only he has the true Christian epistemology.

is an absolute departure from the truth. Your making of these accusations is despicable.

 

You speak of your autonomy. What of God's?

---

 

Davidk

Edited by davidk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am having trouble understanding what you are saying it is at least in part because you haved used words without their common understanding. Within this thread I am trying to talk about appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. I’m not clear whether you are talking about the same thing. All of a sudden….epistemology for introverts and extroverts? Perhaps there are others who see what you are saying and can help me understand. I admit that I am losing part of my mind as I get older—so anyone out there--can you help me out here?

 

If you had bothered to understand what I have been saying all this time, it would not be "all of a sudden". I have been making this arguement in various different frameworks for a long time.

 

The idea that there are two very different worldviews, described as introverted and extraverted is as old as the Bible itself, and older. Those who have addressed the subject are: Plato, Jesus, Paul, The Gnostics, Augustine, Goethe, Luther, Kant, Nietzche, Schiller, Buddihists, James (William), Jung and gee I'll give you a more complete list later.

 

Add: Terullian, Origen ... Freud, Adler, Spittleler (versus Goethe) ...

 

Into modern science:

 

Multiple modes of innate survival strategies ... experienced in consciousness as spiritual (Jung, Haidt, Damasio, Valent).

 

Morality as innate ... too many to mention.

 

Sin as innate, a moot point if science shows that goodness is also innate.

 

Sorry, it just gets to be a bit boring to keep up an arguement with davidk and those who will not just let science speak without their own bias.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had bothered to understand what I have been saying all this time, it would not be "all of a sudden". I have been making this arguement in various different frameworks for a long time.

 

The idea that there are two very different worldviews, described as introverted and extraverted is as old as the Bible itself, and older. Those who have addressed the subject are: Plato, Jesus, Paul, The Gnostics, Augustine, Goethe, Luther, Kant, Nietzche, Schiller, Buddihists, James (William), Jung and gee I'll give you a more complete list later.

 

Add: Terullian, Origen ... Freud, Adler, Spittleler (versus Goethe) ...

 

Into modern science:

 

Multiple modes of innate survival strategies ... experienced in consciousness as spiritual (Jung, Haidt, Damasio, Valent).

 

Morality as innate ... too many to mention.

 

Sin as innate, a moot point if science shows that goodness is also innate.

Nope, sorry, still lost. But I don’t think you are trying to talk about the thread (I will try not to take personal offense as the author of the thread). Again you may want to talk about what is important to you which as I said before is ok. It just sometimes gets boring when someone always wants to change the subject back to what is on their mind.

 

But again it may be just me. Anyone? Help??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I appreciate your honesty even though the logic of the argument is a little shy of adequate. I understand that you feel I believe things should be believed rather than experienced to make it valid. Whether I disagree or not, the point you have made is that your belief is that you must believe in your correct belief as opposed to mine.

---

 

Davidk

No, you are still missing it and that is because you are still limited to your tools. First logic is overrated. Second I am talking about epistemology and you are talking theology/philosophy. I am talking about "how you know" as being primary within experience before belief comes along. You consider belief primary and necessary for experience. These are fundamentally opposing. Experience is not a belief. Now you dismiss the importance of experience because of your belief and I give it importance based upon belief but the primary experience is not belief. That's about as far as I can go with someone who is working with different tools. Thanks and again let's just talk baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, sorry, still lost. But I don’t think you are trying to talk about the thread (I will try not to take personal offense as the author of the thread). Again you may want to talk about what is important to you which as I said before is ok. It just sometimes gets boring when someone always wants to change the subject back to what is on their mind.

 

But again it may be just me. Anyone? Help??

 

Well then David, you have found another person you cannot communicate with. Like others, I find it much more stimulating to debate elsewhewre. More depth, more nuance. Less rigid.

 

When you are done working up the rules for Me, Jen and the others, let us know.

 

I am off to a much more productive territory with people who can tolerate and accept, argue and reject.

 

I have read what you have said David,

 

you are now the defacto moderator of this board. Enjoy!!!! Bye bye...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then David, you have found another person you cannot communicate with. Like others, I find it much more stimulating to debate elsewhewre. More depth, more nuance. Less rigid.

 

When you are done working up the rules for Me, Jen and the others, let us know.

 

I am off to a much more productive territory with people who can tolerate and accept, argue and reject.

 

I have read what you have said David,

 

you are now the defacto moderator of this board. Enjoy!!!! Bye bye...

 

Thanks for all of your contributions. I really enjoyed our discussions on Jung.

You know that progressives and rules don't mix. Images of herding cats.

I can’t be a moderator. I’m going to Canada and talk with my bird.

Maybe I am better at talking with birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your contributions. I really enjoyed our discussions on Jung.

You know that progressives and rules don't mix. Images of herding cats.

I can’t be a moderator. I’m going to Canada and talk with my bird.

Maybe I am better at talking with birds.

 

My progressive cat (named Poopers) is deeply offended. Herds and cats do not fit together conceptually, in practice, or in nature. My cat knows his relationship to nature and to the bird. He simply says, may I speak also? I listen to both.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are still missing it and that is because you are still limited to your tools. First logic is overrated. Second I am talking about epistemology and you are talking theology/philosophy. I am talking about "how you know" as being primary within experience before belief comes along. You consider belief primary and necessary for experience. These are fundamentally opposing. Experience is not a belief. Now you dismiss the importance of experience because of your belief and I give it importance based upon belief but the primary experience is not belief. That's about as far as I can go with someone who is working with different tools. Thanks and again let's just talk baseball.

 

You are joking, are you not? Uhhh ... this is such an old debate it is almost boring. Belief and experience cannot possibly be in fundamental opposition !!! They have to be the same damn thing!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are joking, are you not? Uhhh ... this is such an old debate it is almost boring. Belief and experience cannot possibly be in fundamental opposition !!! They have to be the same damn thing!!!

I thought you were gone. I see I wasted my herding cats analogy.

 

Yes belief and experience are very different. The issue is foundational for epistemology. One who thinks that you must have belief in order to have any experience that you can “know” is fundamentally opposed to someone who would reject that. Now as to whether it is possible to have experience without belief the answer appears obvious to all but the fundamentlists. Belief depends upon our conceptual processes in a way that primary perception does not (perception that involves a prior belief obviously is affected by belief). The “properties” of an experience are more elemental than the belief. It is possible to experience something that you have no idea how to conceptualize and provides no basis for prior belief. It is also possible to experience something so infinite that no belief can conceptualize it. This all suggests that experience is indeed “primary” and comes before belief. It also suggests that there is something that "holds together" our experience that is more primary than belief. But it certainly is not “the same damn thing”.

 

Furthermore my experience with progressives shows that they are very sure about their religious experience but much less sure about how to translate that into belief. So for them it is certainly not “the same damn thing”. How do you “know” mystery? How do you “know” awe? How to you “know” love? Maybe most of all how can you "know" Grace? A fundamentalist will say you can not know any of these things without some prior belief. A progressive will just smile and walk away.

 

P.S. By the way I am really getting tired of your being bored.

Edited by David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service