Which, as you point out, might not be indicative of all that much.
I suspect it is because we are coming at it from the same religious tradition, so the only difference is faith, which isn't relevant to the discussion.
a debate I and others were having with an atheist on whether evolving revelation rendered religion incoherent.
Let me guess - the atheist expected his 'revelation' of incoherence would come as a huge shock to you all. The trouble with a lot of atheists, especially while they are still at the evangelical stage, is that they stopped learning about religion at the moment they stopped believing, so they are genuinely unaware that Christianity has had a long time to think about these problems and actually has some very impressive responses. If I didn't happen to spend a fair bit of time in Christian services I would be unaware of this myself. (Because I sing in various choirs, including singing services, if you were wondering.)
And you and I have discussed that element, the interdependence of ethics and theology, at length before. I was re-reading those conversations this morning after I hit "post"; I'm really glad you prompted me those many months ago to articulate my thoughts on meta/ethics and save them. It's a really valuable resource to me.
I must go and reread it myself, because I've been thinking all afternoon about the nature of morality versus legality and need to remind myself of some things.
BTW, I have a question about the nature of radical feminism, if you are minded to discuss it. I have been wondering the following for some time now: If radical feminism revolves around the notion that there are those in positions of power (loosely, men) and those who are disempowered (loosely, the rest) then to what extent does the radical system perceive the necessity for establishing methods of negotiating with the powerful on behalf of the the disempowered, or does it try to avoid such negotiation as 'playing into' the existing power structures?
Of course this may not be the sort of thing you want to discuss right now, so please don't feel any pressure to answer.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 05:26 pm (UTC)I suspect it is because we are coming at it from the same religious tradition, so the only difference is faith, which isn't relevant to the discussion.
Let me guess - the atheist expected his 'revelation' of incoherence would come as a huge shock to you all. The trouble with a lot of atheists, especially while they are still at the evangelical stage, is that they stopped learning about religion at the moment they stopped believing, so they are genuinely unaware that Christianity has had a long time to think about these problems and actually has some very impressive responses. If I didn't happen to spend a fair bit of time in Christian services I would be unaware of this myself. (Because I sing in various choirs, including singing services, if you were wondering.)
I must go and reread it myself, because I've been thinking all afternoon about the nature of morality versus legality and need to remind myself of some things.
BTW, I have a question about the nature of radical feminism, if you are minded to discuss it. I have been wondering the following for some time now:
If radical feminism revolves around the notion that there are those in positions of power (loosely, men) and those who are disempowered (loosely, the rest) then to what extent does the radical system perceive the necessity for establishing methods of negotiating with the powerful on behalf of the the disempowered, or does it try to avoid such negotiation as 'playing into' the existing power structures?
Of course this may not be the sort of thing you want to discuss right now, so please don't feel any pressure to answer.