tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post4310709541125511443..comments2024-01-11T07:17:00.531-05:00Comments on Dem Bones: Religious Hybridization and Post-Christian AmericaDrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-62430181737948060562009-04-12T03:52:00.000-04:002009-04-12T03:52:00.000-04:00I'll give the blog some props here. The fact that ...I'll give the blog some props here. The fact that this blog has a readership (or at least a group of commentators) as diverse as matt, Kent H., Darren, Katie, Faithful Reader, and myself is a testament not to Drew's Univeralism, but to his genuine desire to hear everyone's point of view and his desire to have us dialouge with each other. I don't agree with Matt or Kent but I certainly understand and respect their viewpoints more fully because of this blog.Matt F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18246998355550525395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-26412034199943847602009-04-11T19:46:00.000-04:002009-04-11T19:46:00.000-04:00Not to be too pedantic, but "hybridization" is mo...Not to be too pedantic, but "hybridization" is more appropriately called syncretism. That said, I applaud two things: bias stated up front, and open discussion. Everyone is biased; not everyone owns up to it. Nor is every discussion an open one. Welcome to Dem Bones, anon!VGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00430250530056248189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-81652835160272171362009-04-11T19:21:00.000-04:002009-04-11T19:21:00.000-04:00This blog seems balanced to me. If there is a bias...This blog seems balanced to me. If there is a bias it is that the blog is unbiased, letting all voices be heard equally. <BR/><BR/>Anon, your voice is heard and I am sure by others on this blog as well. I hope you will continue to read and write here, because I feel when all are heard from, then I am better informed and engaged.<BR/><BR/>It may not lead to hybridization of all the bloggers but it may lead to better understanding. <BR/><BR/>I agree with Drew, the movements in religion here in the United States do not mean the world is making or will make the same moves. And none of us can be 100% sure that the trends we see will manifest into movements or change.<BR/><BR/>Hope to hear more from you ANON and hope the dialogue remains peaceful and open.A Faithful Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-92030027982797268992009-04-11T16:57:00.000-04:002009-04-11T16:57:00.000-04:00drew - what fun would it be if you (or any of us) ...drew - what fun would it be if you (or any of us) were unbiased! :)matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00975647041376307240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-78853512235351973222009-04-11T11:47:00.000-04:002009-04-11T11:47:00.000-04:00Anonymous,Thank you for your comment, and I am hon...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comment, and I am honored to have you consider this blog and this community one of your favorites. The strength of this community is through is commenters, so we are blessed to have you. <BR/><BR/>I actually agree with you, that hybridization is a potentially a very bad for orthodoxical religion. Though I have my disagreements with many tenets of Christian orthodoxy, I would like to see it maintain a generally robust existence. And, I don't think this hybridization is going to be a worldwide phenomenon. The conservative tides coming out of two-thirds world countries immigrating into more secularized countries, with population declines, will ensure that, as a whole, hybridization will not be a world-wide affair. Finally when I do come across articles from other religions, I do post them here. I have had many articles on Islam and Judaism; from religion and violence to creation belief systems, from the intersection of green energy and theology to the experience of the divine. <BR/><BR/>A few other things. The subtitle of my blog, "Where Progressive Politics Dialogues with Religion and Spirituality" makes my bias transparent. I am an unabashed progressive, with a progressive theological degree. I am a progressive Democrat. But while my bias is open to all, this blog isn't really premised on those biases. This blog exists because while religion and government are important to our everyday life, we don't always agree. And, most importantly, while we don't have to agree about everything, we should dialogue, civilly, with each other in order to understand differing points of view and to disarm the conflict that sometimes arises from disagreement. Dialogue is important to me, and therefore, this blog. Those are my biases, unashamed.<BR/><BR/>If that is my bias, how do I decide what articles to post? That is the next logical question, it would seem to me. I don't go around picking articles that conform to any agenda. I search the blogosphere and news agencies for posts that are insightful, sometimes amusing, yet recent and dialogue provoking. The post parent to this thread was picked because it was recent, relevant to our general discussion of the possible decline of relevance of Christianity, and expanded on the insightful comments of J.Rat. On the other hand, if the news and internets are talking about something, I generally try to shy away unless I think that I can offer a differing insight. So, unless subconciously, I don't pick and discuss posts that conform to one theological agenda over another. My commentary on the post, however, conforms to my above transparent biases. <BR/><BR/>Hope that helps.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-78349314680273553722009-04-11T06:08:00.000-04:002009-04-11T06:08:00.000-04:00"Whatever religion" may be good for some, but it i..."Whatever religion" may be good for some, but it is not the course one must take nor is it the inevitable course the world will take. This blog, like all other blogs, starts to show it's bias over time, by what it posts and what it does not post. Hybridization of religion is called Universalism, it has been around a long time. This is not a new idea and it is not a new wave on the sea of religious thinking. I am a genXer seeking truth, and find it distressing for one of my favorite blogs to narrow its discussion more and more exclusively to Universalism, rather than to an broader discussion of all religionsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-68869411824292447262009-04-11T00:38:00.000-04:002009-04-11T00:38:00.000-04:00Matt,I would say that there is a single truth, but...Matt,<BR/><BR/>I would say that there is a single truth, but many differing ways to attain it, and recognize it. I would say that the one truth is perfectly summed up in the Golden Rule. When we do right by our fellow man, when we are loving, kind, and compassionate, then we are reaching towards holiness.<BR/><BR/>One can apply whatever theology or dogma to it that one likes -- sin, grace, karma, reincarnation, pleasing or angering god(s), what have you -- but I think that, for me, loving kindness sums it up nicely.<BR/><BR/>There are lots of different traditions, cultures and religions that appear to suggest this. Seems to me, that's our common human thread or "truth."<BR/><BR/>That said, if the benevolent creative force of the universe wants to nudge and guide us towards rightness, wouldn't it make sense that what feels right for an individual be their own particular way of seeking the common truth? What do you think?Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16013788601508434431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-47415780499145270512009-04-10T21:03:00.000-04:002009-04-10T21:03:00.000-04:00should one search for what feels right, or for the...should one search for what feels right, or for the truth?<BR/><BR/>is there a "truth"?matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00975647041376307240noreply@blogger.com