Question about the nature of this Group

[TygrBright]

Is the purpose of this group to allow believers of all different religious orientations and theologies to discuss religion?

Or, is the purpose of this group to enable constant rehashes of the dreary, unending, exceedingly stale, tedious theist/atheist argument that never changes anyone's mind and seems to end up subsuming any religion-related discussion on DU?

curiously,
Bright

[comipinko]

1. Yes.

[dmallind]

2. And the difference would be what? The idea that somebody dares to subject religion to critique?

Should only elected officials be allowed to have opinions in political threads? What's the difference between that and allowing the non-religious to discuss religion, to dismiss religion, to criticize religion? It affects our lives more than most political matters do after all.

You after all can easily ignore ontological arguments, and offer us all the joy of your theoligical pearls of wisdom

[TygrBright]

3. Thank you. That appears to be a definitive answer.

Sorry, but I have no theoligical pearls of wisdom to offer, nor even theological ones. I was rather hoping to find a place where I could benefit from other believers' insights and experiences, but this forum doesn't appear to be it.

I appreciate your clarification.

amiably,
Bright

[dmallind]

4. Leaving aside the lame typo gotcha, try one of the several theist only groups

I think the one ending in "progressive people of faith" is the best catchall.

[TygrBright]

5. Sorry, didn't have any deities available to heal the lame.

I was hoping for a place non-Christian believers would identify with as well as Christians. I agree, the "and progressive etc." appears to be the closest thing to that.

amiably,
Bright

[dmallind]

8. or the condescending attitude apparently...

[TygrBright]

14. I apologize if my attempt at humor was condescending. I did not intend it to be so. n/t

[skepticscott]

16. People like you are free

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

to visit the Christian Liberals and Progressive People of Faith group, and have all of the deep, meaningful discussions of that type you want amongst each other, with no mean ol' atheists to annoy you with facts and logic.

Trouble is, no one really seems to be interested in actually having those kinds of discussions, because you never see them there. EVER. They seem to be more interested in whining that they can't have them here.

[darkstar3]

20. Ain't that the truth.

I remember my few visits to the "Christian Liberals" group on DU2. Not much was posted there, and the group often went days without a single post, but what I found most interesting was the content of the few posts I found. It seemed more a place for a litany of complaints about R/T than anything else.

It just goes to show you that discussions don't actually happen unless there is someone with a differing viewpoint.

[Thats my opinion]

30. don't give up on finding some intelligent discussion so easily nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. I think the answer is that it's intended for both

But the former doesn't get posted much while the latter dominates. Humans savor controversy, so the battles tend to have the most participants. Genial chats just don't go very far while the battles rage on and on.

If you want to read some good stuff, the DU2 R&T forum has some interesting posts from AsihiniKimi that are of the non-controversial nature. There are a couple of others like that, but most threads in the group are of the bombastic variety.

[TygrBright]

7. I was sort of hoping for a place where threads like the ones you refer to...

...would be the norm, rather than the occasional exception among all the dreary rehashes of the same old arguments.

But it's fairly clear this is not it, and believers who want such discussion will have to confine it to within their own faith/denomination. Ecumenicism not encouraged. And Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, etc., not welcome.

sadly,
Bright

[struggle4progress]

9. actually some of us regulars would welcome posts on buddhism taoism hinduism &c&c

[laconicsax]

10. +1

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. I would definitely welcome posts on those topics

Even if I don't respond, I find them fascinating.

Plus, the trench warfare is wearying sometimes.

[MH1]

12. Not a regular, but maybe if there were posts on those topics, I would be.

Come to think of it, it seems a little surprising to me that there isn't a Buddhism group. Seeing's as Buddhism fits very well with liberalism.

[TygrBright]

13. I believe that Buddhism highlights a very important set of key insights...

...about the nature, source, and expression of Divinity.

Those insights are present in other faiths as well, but they tend to get lost in theology, hierarchy, organization and doctrine.

While there are more doctrine-oriented yanas, and certainly aspects of hierarchy in specific communities, the focus on personal transformation is far more direct and complete than in most of the other major faiths.

It would be interesting to discuss the common and disparate elements of personally transformational practice and belief with a multi-faith community.

wistfully,
Bright

[skepticscott]

18. So what exactly does "Divinity" mean?

and what has Buddhism discovered (as opposed to decided and declared) about it?

[RTBerry]

22. That depends on at least two issues requiring further clarification.

1) What school/tradition of Buddhism are we talking about?
2) What do we mean by the word: "Divinity?"

Depending on the answers to these, a "Buddhist" response might range from "there are lots of gods, but none are immortal & all-powerful" to "speculating on the nature of divinity is unproductive" to "there's one divine being, and you are one it, but you don't know that yet" and a whole manner of other possible responses--all based on (quote) discovery (unquote) in one or more senses of that word. Buddhism isn't monolithic.

[skepticscott]

23. In answer to my question

"So what exactly does "Divinity" mean?", you're saying, in all seriousness, that it depends on "2) What do we mean by the word: "Divinity?" "??

Well, duh. Or is that one of those Buddhismisms that is meant to sound profound and unfathomable by the unenlightened, while actually being nothing more than obscurantist BS?

With regard to #1, why are you posing that to me? I never implied that Buddhism is monolithic. Ask TygrBright what was meant when they used the term "Buddhism" without qualification.

[TygrBright]

25. 1. Whatever the believer believes it means; 2. Which yana? As stated in my post...

...different paths of Buddhism have differing insights.

amiably,
Bright

[skepticscott]

36. Well, if all Buddhism can declare is that

divinity can mean absolutely anything that any individual says it does, that hardly qualifies as "a very important set of key insights about the nature, source, and expression of Divinity"

[skepticscott]

17. Well, if the religionists didn't keep trying to float

the same old debunked BS for the hundredth time, we wouldn't have to keep making the same arguments in response. How about asking THEM to come up with some new evidence and arguments instead?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Rehashes of arguments are an important part of religion

as is not changing your mind. Many religions proudly point to how many thousands of years they've been going, and how faithful their followers have been, never changing their mind.

Take the tradition out of religion, and you'll change the world - as fundamentally as abolishing capitalism.

[deacon_sephiroth]

19. Is this ANOTHER thread trying to get he atheists to shut up?

Also I see the un-rec feature is gone, I am sad.

[darkstar3]

21. Here's an apparently novel idea

If you don't like the discussions, you don't have to wander into them. You are free to post an OP that fits with your ideal of what these discussions should focus on. Failing that, you're also free to visit the Christian Liberals group.

[cbayer]

24. I think it can serve both purposes, but would like to see it more focused on the first.

What I would like to see is the group move away from being a battleground where one side or the other feels that they have to win. It is particularly telling that you see language in here that you would expect to see in a sports venue (like - "score one for the team!" or "so and so gets the win!".

[TygrBright]

26. I would like to see that, too.

I have no interest in convincing non-theists that theism is "right" or even "valid." Nor am I interested in the XXXth iteration of why theism is irrational, stupid, socially destructive, and otherwise negative, etc.

I am not going to convince them of anything; they are not going to convince me of anything. Attempts to do so quickly devolve into the scenario you describe (at best) or, even less productively, childish attempts to annoy each other.

Nevertheless, there are theists and non-theists who seem to greatly enjoy the joust. I've no wish to deprive them of their pleasure, I'm just looking for a place where believers of all faiths can discuss various aspects of belief without annoying or provoking the non-theists.

I'd appreciate a place that isn't specifically Christian in orientation, or, indeed specifically ANY faith tradition in orientation. But that doesn't appear to be feasible, for whatever reasons.

wistfully,
Bright

[darkstar3]

27. Did you perhaps miss the "Progressive People of Faith" portion of the group title to the left?

Exactly what you're looking for already exists. I and others would appreciate it if certain members would stop asking that this discussion group be transformed to eliminate dissenting voices.

[TygrBright]

29. No, I didn't miss that. I didn't miss the "Christian" part, either.

It's sort of like having a forum for "Bears Fans and other people who want to talk about sports." Who do you think is most likely to feel like it is "their" comfortable safe haven-type forum? Suppose you want to look for a thread on which kind of physical conditioning is most likely to make you a good competition snowboarder. Would "Bears fans and other people who want to talk about sports" be what you'd click on?

I'm not demanding that THIS forum be transformed. I was simply asking about the function of this forum. Based on the responses, I understand that this forum is not going to be the forum I was hoping for. I don't demand that it become such.

I wouldn't mind another forum for believers of all faiths to have intra-faith discussions, but I do concede that we are unlikely to have such a forum. I hope it's permissible to express my regret. But perhaps that's not appropriate to the purpose of this forum, either. If so, the host is free to hide these posts or lock this thread or whatever.

peaceably,
Bright

[darkstar3]

33. That's a bad analogy.

You're a Christian, if I read correctly, and you wish to discuss articles of faith with other believers without the dissent that comes from non-believers. The "Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith" group is ideally suited to such a desire. Christians and any other believers who feel friendly to Christians are free to use that group as a safe haven, where no criticism or dissent on the existence of God will be found.

Furthermore, DU3 is new, and the groups have, in the past, seen very little traffic. Go make of it what you will. No one from here will stop you.

[Thats my opinion]

28. A very good question

We don't need the toxic atmosphere that dominated r/t

[laconicsax]

32. Do you intend to change your behavior?

I seem to recall you being part of the problem, not the solution.

[iris27]

31. It can be a place for both. Much of the OP content in R/T was posted by maybe 5 members, 2-3 of

whom posted multiple OPs a day. If you'd like it to be a place for believers of any stripe to discuss religion, start threads along those lines, and keep starting them. The rare threads of that nature that were posted in RT were treated respectfully. I'm specifically remembering one member's post about being unsure whether the baptism they received as an infant in one Christian denomination was sufficient now that they were joining another denomination as an adult.

Now, it won't ONLY be a place for that type of discussion, because there is a genuine need for a place to discuss religious hegemony in politics and public life, and the admins decided long ago to relegate all such threads to R-T/R instead of GD/Soapbox.

But I think it's a place where both can co-exist.

[TygrBright]

34. Maybe I am too much of a coward.

I just have a feeling that posting an OP here about how believers regard various faiths' conceptualizations of the divine as numinous vs transcendent will end badly.

timidly,
Bright

[iris27]

35. I can understand that, but I guess the only way to know is to try. I've never seen an AsahinaKimi

thread, for example, go down in flames. Or, if you'd rather create a safe space to be sure of avoiding derails, I'm sure we could get 10 folks here to support the formation of a new group.