tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2077427301556163236..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Which God is it?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79044969242506044332013-02-26T16:50:01.896-08:002013-02-26T16:50:01.896-08:00maybe it doesn't matter that much in most case...maybe it doesn't matter that much in most cases. I think for the people I argue with on carm it does.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58738005470497089342013-02-26T15:14:10.237-08:002013-02-26T15:14:10.237-08:00Well, we are talking about two things, my question...Well, we are talking about two things, my question and my example. <br /><br />Regarding my question, I am saying that some people may use it as a trick, but others really mean more or the less same thing when saying "the Christian God" and "the Christian depiction of God." I appreciate your frustration at the trick, but for lots of people who use such language there is no difference intended. <br /><br />So how does it really matter in the end of someone launches an objection to "the Christian God" or "Christian theology" in that case? I mean, if you say "I object to X" as presented by Christianity, then "X" is still a problem whatever phrasing one uses.<br /><br />Regarding my example, the issue isn't about hijacking the message on behalf of the institution. I specifically pointed out the kinds of people who value the message and are often into interfaith dialogue with various traditions. They appreciate contemplation, meditation, poetic nuance, the divine/daily office, etc. They have a sense of history and knowledge of the deeper theology and tradition. That's what I was going off of on my appraisal, not a superficial kind of presentation. <br /><br />And the fact is, they present a populist view in their speeches and books, which again, sounds good. They use their knowledge and experience to try to make Christian theology and praxis appealing and accessible. <br /><br />Yet for all the the interfaith comparisons and historical excellence, and all the rest, when you get beyond some books about the tradition and actually try to get into the tradition, there is a disconnect. Gaps. Inconsistencies. <br /><br />No matter which way you look at it, except as someone outside the tradition only picking and choosing a few parts loosely interpreted, that populist presentation just doesn't stack up within the tradition itself or at least it leaves a lot out that wouldn't be so popular. And you know, they never address that. Or at least they only do in passing. <br /><br />I would love to resurrect Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Bede Griffiths, and Br. Wayne Teasdale, then summon people like Archbishop Tutu, Fr. Thomas Keating, and Fr. Richard Rohr and a few others, and have a private conference for a week putting questions to them. To get at the stuff that serious people are still going to wonder about who just don't give a pass to things on faith or just because. I think it would be very enlightening and the result could fill a best-seller and maybe start some big religious movement. But, as this isn't possible, I can only say that the disconnect remains.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34461202687720409862013-02-26T05:48:53.911-08:002013-02-26T05:48:53.911-08:00Dave said...
"As a corollary to what you...Dave said...<br /><br /> "As a corollary to what you are describing, if someone changed it to "your construct of God is" rather than "your God is", what real difference would that make to how you perceived or responded to criticism? I know you are discussing here as a rhetorical trick in debating, but how much mileage does it really get?"<br /><br /><b>No I am not just talking about a trick. I really think this way. This is really how i deal with other traditions and how I keep from being ant-others in my appreciation of other faiths. I regard it as a sincere effort to find truth and not sell out faith..<br /><br />It's just a beginning I don't know where one goes with it.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34790632717720511132013-02-26T05:46:42.465-08:002013-02-26T05:46:42.465-08:00Kristen said...
"Well put. It has always...Kristen said...<br /><br /> "Well put. It has always seemed strange to me that an atheist would ask, "which god?" as if monotheists and polytheists were the same. Monotheists believe in just one God, so however well or poorly we approximate the nature of this God, there can only be one God we are talking about. Christians believe that the character of the one God is uniquely revealed in Jesus. But even those who don't believe this, if they are reaching out for God and finding God, it's the same God we're talking about."<br /><br /><b>thanks Kristen I appreciate that.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56993764373491893712013-02-26T05:44:24.907-08:002013-02-26T05:44:24.907-08:00Look at the long email you sent me this morning ab...Look at the long email you sent me this morning about Buddhism and the self. That' just scratching the surface of a very complex history that i bet you most atheists who mouth appreciation for Buddhism have no idea even exists.<br /><br />My brother was into Buddhism and he was a good intellectual who doesn't study half assed and he used to talk about a lot of the stuff you told me in that email. So I know how complex that is. But most westerners who think they like Buddhism would never suspect it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48117668535416129122013-02-26T05:41:52.605-08:002013-02-26T05:41:52.605-08:00Well you know anytime you have a large diverse gro...Well you know anytime you have a large diverse group and that group holds power in any sense temporally, you are going to have parts of it that are more pervasive than others. Those that hold power will always wind up serving the institution rather than the original message. You really just can't organize a group to preserve a message and not have the mission change and become about preserving the group rather than the message.<br /><br />We will always have this group like lag between the message finders who discover again anew (for themselves) the meaning of the original message and try to spread that then the old guard institutionalizes who are seeking to protect the structure at the price of losing the message. Some of them them may not even know what the message was.<br /><br />Sociology, rather than anthropology is needed here.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80323451468023054352013-02-26T05:34:20.871-08:002013-02-26T05:34:20.871-08:00As a corollary to what you are describing, if some...As a corollary to what you are describing, if someone changed it to "your construct of God is" rather than "your God is", what real difference would that make to how you perceived or responded to criticism? I know you are discussing here as a rhetorical trick in debating, but how much mileage does it really get?<br /><br />For example, I read things by people like modern Christian contemplatives and by people such as Archbishop Tutu that give a particular impression of Christianity and its depiction of God. It sounds intriguing and appealing. Then I actually get into Church history, theology, doctrine, liturgy, and close examination of holy texts within the Bible, and the picture changes. The impression previously given doesn't match up well to the enterprise itself.<br /><br />In other words, it appears one way from a distance, where lots of stuff is generalized and blurry, but quite different up close. And that's even after considering cultural/historical context, seeing elements of the tradition beyond dichotomies of didactic literalism and inspirational imagery, etc. The product doesn't live up to the billing.<br /><br />Ironically, I think some folks have a distaste for Christianity because of this -- because it doesn't live up to its presentation by certain groups or individuals. No one likes a bait and switch. They are disappointed in how the tradition presents itself and God.<br /><br />So, maybe there are some folks who are saying "the Christian God" instead of "the Christian depiction of God" when expressing their disappointment or disbelief, but I'm not sure how much that really influences their criticism. I suspect many skeptics, cynics, and disillusioned seekers would see such semantic distinctions as trivial.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9288529089787967412013-02-25T23:12:24.198-08:002013-02-25T23:12:24.198-08:00Well put. It has always seemed strange to me that...Well put. It has always seemed strange to me that an atheist would ask, "which god?" as if monotheists and polytheists were the same. Monotheists believe in just one God, so however well or poorly we approximate the nature of this God, there can only be one God we are talking about. Christians believe that the character of the one God is uniquely revealed in Jesus. But even those who don't believe this, if they are reaching out for God and finding God, it's the same God we're talking about. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com