Comments | matt_arnold: America's Smartland

matt_arnold

America's Smartland

Nov 01, 2005 11:46

Followers of Christ did not get the label "Christian" until several decades after Christ. The term was coined by non-Christians in Asia Minor as a derisive term, meaning "little Christ ones." In a stroke of genius, the followers of Christ adopted the term as their name and it came to mean something good. I saw a similar opportunity in a newspaper ( Read more... )

humanism, atheism, orson scott card, christianity, secular, religion, christian

Comments 12

"....the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt......" rachelann1977 November 1 2005, 21:47:33 UTC

OK, then I'm among the safest human beings on the planet!

Karma vs. Dogma rachelann1977 November 1 2005, 21:53:51 UTC

The real problem is that all of the religious right in America needs to have its Dogma get run over by its Karma.

In other words, supposed "religiosity" which has more to do with adherence to strict rules and social norms is primarily Dogmatic, and completely lacking in what I consider to be honest spirituality, if that makes any sense. There is no balance.

I am clueless as to how to establish an acceptable balance, but I think we may have passed a point beyond which it's necessary to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Re: Karma vs. Dogma matt_arnold November 1 2005, 21:58:40 UTC

I think I know what you mean. You could say that even if the founders of the religious traditions were moral pioneers, the behavior of their followers has irreversably polluted their legacy. It's better to have a point of view on these matters that isn't associated with the name of a teacher and their traditions.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: I believe you're over-generalizing matt_arnold November 1 2005, 22:21:38 UTC

Sure. This is a problem of a vocabulary difference. When confronting a widespread problem, the focus is on changing the widespread concept, not every single fringe variation. I don't think of your gods as gods within the standard model, so I'm not talking about them. I could only talk about them if I have any concrete definition of them to talk about.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: I believe you're over-generalizing matt_arnold November 1 2005, 22:37:12 UTC

In using that terminology, you are helping a great deal. This practice is part of the solution and I need to remind myself to do it more often. One of the major points of what I would like to acheive involves breaking out of provincialistic molds. I find myself limited to constantly talking about the paradigm of the community I'm trying to defeat, constantly using their words. This is a trap which can probably be evaded, with practice.

(The comment has been removed)

matt_arnold November 2 2005, 17:08:06 UTC

There's difference between "irrationality" and "irrationalism" which derides smarts as a matter of principle in favor of blind faith. You are the sort of person who respects thought and intelligence, but we geeks know better than anyone that there are a tons of people who hate and deride smarts. You said, "which side are most people going to want to belong to, Stupidland or Smartland?" Which world are you living in? Obviously Stupidland exists-- it consists of any people like Orson Scott Card who think you and I should be ashamed not to be stupid. That's the distinction between Smartland and Stupidland, and it's not about who agrees with who.

As for labels, "Christian" is a label which draws a line in the sand, and I don't see you removing that.

(The comment has been removed)

matt_arnold November 2 2005, 19:22:45 UTC

Of course it's not a black-and-white issue. Stupidland and Smartland are directions in which different people desire to travel, not settled arrivals.

"the only ones that perpetuate this kind mental meme littering are those that stand the most to gain."

This is a powerful point. But I have to disagree with the historical factuality of the following statements:

"Christian is a label which doesn't have a negative opposite. My point is that Christian, historically ... hasn't been used as wedge to divide people into "us and them" categories."

Yes it has, probably more than any other group label in the history of the English- & Spanish-speaking world. It's been the ultimate in-group for centuries, during which "unchristian" or "godless" were common slurs. "Not being Christian" was a synonym for "being bad."

This label is also one of the most black-and-white, since when you name yourself after a person it's kind of a package deal. That's why folks like treebones don't call themselves "Christians," they say they have tendencies and leanings in ( ... )

Thread 11