Hi Arlo, I guess it does. Intellect yes, but intellectual honesty too. I'm all for that, but human nature is full of self-preserving hypocrisy and denial too.
I wouldn't want to debate details of who did what, (and particularly why) in history, but I have no problem also accepting that the intellect of western culture owes something to it's christian culture, and of the eastern religious cultures it brushed up against .... and moving on. Looking forward, I think total capitulation is an impossibility, but progress is progress .... to a pragmatist. I don't believe for a minute, you're looking for a pound of flesh. Whilst I cannot imagine the word "all" being used, I can imagine "some" and later "much" and so on ... there will be a significant "mystical" and "mythical" component wherever this leads - which I'm guessing is your "Campbellian" reference maybe ? Ian On 2/26/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Ian] > Why should any attempt by a religion to modify its position > intellectually be seen as pathetic ? > > [Arlo] > I have no problem with "religion" modifying its position. None > whatsoever. What I have problems with the claim by "religion" that IT > brought about the freedoms and rights of man and not the period of > secular enlightenment this is easily traceable to. Up until this > point, "religion" had no interest in proclaiming man's freedom, > especially through the articulated rights of western secular enlightenment. > > So it can change, it SHOULD change, and it SHOULD grow, but it should > be honest about the outside forces that caused those changes. In this > case, Christianity did not give the world "freedom", as is so often > trumpeted, but rather it evolved by embracing a secular idea. And, > historically, it did not do so without first struggling to suppress > and stem off this idea. > > IMO, the next "reformation" will have to be a Campbellian > reformation. I have mixed thoughts about how ready we as a people are > for this, as the rise of fundamentalism demonstrates that man does > not want to "think", man wants to be "told" (and to "tell" others, of > course). That politicos in this nation are forced to pander to this > ideology is saddening. I can't imagine a presidential candidate > saying to a group of fundamentalist Christians, "All this is just an > analogy". And maybe its not their "place" to do so, but its a ongoing > shame it is an impossibility. > > [Ian] > When dogma fails, try intellect. Surely it's to be encouraged ? > > [Arlo] > Absolutely. The trouble is that dogma has been denying this, claiming > instead that it and NOT intellect is responsible for the > "self-evident" truths of the enlightenment. And as such is not really > moving forward, but trying to regress movement or control it. And > that I find immoral. > > Does this clarify my position? > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
