At LAST ! another article into which I can sink my fangs.

The author wrote:

"I was asked by one of the panel on what I based my philosophy of history. I was given three options: Marxism, Foucault or feminism."

and there we have it ! an account of why many young people 'think' the way they do, about life, God, faith, values and morality. BECAUSE they have had Marx, Feminism or Foucalt rammed down their academic throats by a blinkered and narrow minded higher education system.

He goes on......

"Why then has the alternative view, what might be called the liberal humanist or Christian humanist vision, been written out of the possible explanations?"

Why INDEED ! ? Hmm.. perhaps because the thought of life having meaning, direction, a conclusion (the Christian aspect) is repugnant to those with their own (im?)moral agenda ?

But the problem raised here is 2fold. "Christian" and "Liberal/Humanist" There is really no need to add 'humanist' or liberal to the Christian aspect because in Christ it is already complete. There is hardly a need to dilute it.

Taking Humanism by itself, its probably rejected by academia because it does not pander to the deterministic (Marx) or power agenda (Feminism) or 'existential/meaningless' agenda of Foucaltism.

Without a Christian framework to give 'humanistic values' some credibility and foundation, its just pie in the sky sentimentalism and probably further explains why the Academics look for something more 'meaty' like Marxism which is more likely to change the world, albeit in a very sorrowful way in hindsight.

Sadly also, those who do not know Christ, are left with such abysmal chirpings and mutterings of these false prophets of gloom, who, in the absense of true hope and life, cling like frightened children to 'any' thing which otherwise explains existence.

Many of our posters here have suggested that 'universal human values' are inherrant in all humans. But the existence and scale of such things as Marxism and feminism suggest otherwise.

"If a blind man follows a blind man, will they not both fall into a pit" ? Jesus.

I fully support the views of Gregory Melleuish. I have recently seen three of my children through their HSC courses into college. These are intelligent young people -- perhaps not of genius level (sadly?) -- and all have been bashed by the amateur philosophising of the EngLit establishment. They are lucky to have survived.

My youngest son is confronted with questions like the following in preparing for the HSC in New South Wales:

"At the heart of representation are acts of deliberate selection and emphasis. Do the texts you have studied [the writings of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes] demonstrate this in relation to 'telling the truth'? You will be assessed on how well you evaluate and show understanding of the relationship between representation and meaning... You will be assessed on how well you evaluate and show understanding of the relationship between representation and meaning."

We used to discuss propositions like that expressed in the opening sentence when I majored in philosophy some decades ago, and I recall that there are important schools of thought that find serious problems with them (not necessarily -- if at all -- based on Marxism, Foucault or Christ). The proposition is not without merits, in other words, but should NEVER be offered as unquestionable dogma.

However, I counselled my son that if he wanted to get the requisite marks counting toward his matriculation, he would need to put these opinions aside and take the words about "how well you evaluate and show understanding" as a clear warning not to debate the proposition.

Something needs to be done amounting to a shot across the bows of the LitCrit establishment who feel authorised to offer philosophical fast food to the young in this way.

That question you provided seems to me to be a double edged sword. I totally agree that selection and emphasis are part and parcel of all communication, and don't really see why a discussion of this in regard to the texts mentioned is not valid.

I gained the impression that the students are asked to examine the works of the authors mentioned to see whether what they 'presented' fits the factual foundation on which they built their case, and whether they had deliberately rejected certain pieces of information in order to re-inforce the view they are promoting ... did I miss something ?

What would bother me far more, is where a question is asked, which is based on a Marxist economic view in such a way that students had to demonstrate how what they are studying is 'bad' in that it does not comply with Marxist economic or feminist social theory... if u get my drift

1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Paul (2 Corinthians 4)

Boaz, please, for once in your life address a question "on topic". In other words, try not to seize upon the single instance in Greg's article of the word "Christian" to launch into your tub-thumping evangelism. It detracts from any useful discussion of the points he makes, and hijacks the debate into areas of utter and complete irrelevance.

The issue is real, and vitally important if we are to avoid churning out of our schools and universities mindless idiots who can think only in terms of fad-of-the-moment pop philosophy. Which by its nature is transient.

It is already apparent that we are rapidly losing the ability to think for ourselves, and happy instead to be led by the nose by the lethal combination of a nanny-state government (Johnny knows best), an all-powerful press in the hands of a couple of money-grubbing opportunists, a compliant - nay collaborative - judiciary and a voracious kluge of exploitative monopolist businesspeople.

The vast majority of whom, as you take pains to remind me when the mood takes you, are Christians.

This is not a discussion on Christianity. It is a discussion on the politics of education.

>>Just at a time when there should be greater interaction between universities, the wider public and government, academics are creating forms of knowledge that are designed to increase the distance between universities and the rest of society. But, it should be added, always with the intention of demonstrating their superiority over mere lay people.<<

We can possibly gain some hope from the fact that these are words from inside the tent. Let's hope these seeds do not fall on stony ground.

Dammit, you've got me at it now.

The small mindedness of the academic elite rears it head again. I once heard one person say that the only place where marxism and humanisn is believed is in unversities and with journalist (so true). Having a daughter at the ANU not being allowed to have a practical world view without being denigrated again confirms how the academics live in a dream world. Thankfully these people are not running our country as much as they would like to think they know how. The miserable decline in the public education system is due to ordinary people seeing through the failure humanisn/marxism. The private schools don't have long waiting lists for religous purposes but largely due to rejecting a lot of the failed philosphocial views promoted firstly by our universities and then infecting the State school systems.

There are much deeper issues here. The discussion seems to be a competition between different acedemic traditions for dominance, not a search for truth. The battleground between humanism on one side and semiotics/marxism/feminism on the other is a stale old arguement that has largely been replaced by explorations of "post-modernism" - whatever that is. but it seems to critique everthing, not just it's opposition.

All these acedemic arguments are the nature of universities, to juggle notions from within a predefined cultural, intelectual and psychological framework. - winner takes all in the on- campus departmental battles. Post modernism, while giving a somewhat all-critical mushiness to it, exists within the same paradigms of all the other acedemic traditions including the flat earth theory and creationism which have had their place in acedemic history too..

Other cultures learn differently. They learn about different things (in great intelectual depth) and they learn though different methodologies. Perhaps the most obvious "difference" is between oral cultures and literary cultures, the acedemic tradition being the pinacle of literacism. Literacism is all about represented experience, either through text, electronic media or lectures. - a discussion of detatched ideas with no roots to reality. In all cases the student hears the teachers opinion and represented experience of reality, without any direct experience of the reality being studied. Oral traditions are based on direct experience of something then telling a story, or providing tools to describe and remember that experience. - a different pedagogy all together.

lets recognise that these acedemic debates exist within a single pedagogy and social paradigm. The real learning would be to explore paradigms, not themes within paradigms.

I dislike a lot of what has passed for culture and thought since the beginning of the twentieth century, but I think it's a bit rich for people to claim it's any less democratic or less in touch with the common man than what preceded it. Has anyone actually noticed that prior to the twentieth century (actually, prior to the baby boomer generation) academia and the cultural elite were just as far removed from the ordinary man, but for different reasons? They were still an elite, often pushing their own agenda and who looked down on the unwahsed masses, after all.

As far as the culture wars go, maybe there's something to consider. If the ordinary man feels so alienated by the high school English curriculum, or what gets taught in the Arts Faculty at a university, then why doesn't he do something about it? To some extent he is (via private schools and doing courses other than a B.A.), but largely, he's having a whinge. Why not really hold teachers, academics, politicians and journalists to account? Better yet, where's the anti-post modernist groundswell in the form of "ordinary" people becoming teachers, academics, etc. to tell it how it really is and take over the teachers unions and curriculum boards?

If people want to pursue a B.Com. (and then a job in the business world) because it has better job prospects or earning potential, that's fine. However, they shouldn't then complain when the culture wars are so one-sided. The Marxists, feminists and post modernists didn't take over by accident. Partly it was their own efforts, and partly, it was an abdication on the part of their opponents. It's like why the socialist/Marxist/feminist twits always win student elections -- everyone else likes to whinge, but is ultimately too lazy to do anything about it, so the handful of nutters cruise into power year after year.

It ain't necessarily so Shorbe, I was driven from completing a Grad Dip in Education because of the mindless responses that were required to be submitted in a marxist, feminist philisophical setting. Assignments parroting the particular viewpoint of the lecturer received high marks, those presenting an alternative one were required to be resubmitted. In fact it was beyond the comprehension of the tutors/lecturers that another viewpoint might be considered. This was so disappointing because after forty years in the workforce, three degrees in the arts, plus engineering quals, I just wanted to put something back, to return an investment towards the future of others.
Anyway, I agree with Gregory Melleuish's article, but I wonder, does the problem exist because of some active intent on the part of the incumbents in these institutions, or is it that they are simply intellectually unable to grasp or reach out beyond thir own mindset?
In my dealings with academia, I have unfortunately reached the latter conclusion. Mind you I am probably considered to be obtuse because I see the shortcomings in their point of view.

Pericles, thanks. I've been wondering lately if it might be of use to have a new regulator in a similar vein to the TGA (Theraputic Goods Administration I think) called the TSA for Theological Spiel Administration.

Theologies could only be offered to the market after passing rigorous safety tests and would be subject to controls placed over marketting based on double blind tests, widespread studies etc.

A theology which could prove that it truly transformed human lives for the better (compared to control samples) could be marketed differently than those which could not substantiate such claims. Those unable to substantiate those claims through verifiable and acceptable means would not be allowed to make claims that their theology could do so. Same for all other marketing claims such as eternal life, miraculous healing power etc, prove it or don't claim it.

Base the model on what is required of those promoting products in the health field and much of the hard work is taken out of working out what to do.

Maybe need to broaden the scope to include "ism's" - Marxism, feminism, humanism, capitalism, communism, socialism, facism etc to ensure that the claims made by proponents of those ism's were also verifiable. (Does that get me a bit back on topic?)

If we do so we would need a more inclusive name than the TSA - any idea's?

Could be fun.

R0bert

Pericles, you have been around this site long enough to know that BOAZ is a bore and best ignored when he preaches (every time he posts?). He only hijacks the debate if he is allowed to.

On topic, I am always interested in the 'elites v ordinary Joes' debate in arts education. As a science graduate, I did not experience any form of cultural elitism with a leftist influence. I don't know to what extent that is a true characterisation of arts faculties in Australia.

I do agree that it seems a little bizarre to be reading a 19th century work by say, a Bronte, and trying to interpret it through a prism of a political or social philosophy developed later. Perhaps a better way of putting such a question would be 'explain ....in the context of social mores that prevailed at the time and contrast with those that are currently fashionable'. Takes the rigidity out of it.

However, if we accept that teachibg is to be delivered by those well-versed in a field, is it not inevitable that the majority of teachers will subscribe to and promulgate a particular school of thought, probably a prevailing one? That there will be opposing minority schools of thought? That such differences are always present in learning and academia? What is the real alternative - rigidly applied curricula that do not allow for interpretation and debate? If 'elites' are the problem, what is the alternative to that - lay people with little expertise?

Brilliant idea Robert, if a bit fascist.. we could call it the Theological and Ideological Trustworthiness Authority (TITA)

Oh my God, lay people with expertise! Oh no, never that! Oh please, our castle is under threat.

hellothere, that works well although there is a part of me that now wants to change "Authority" to a word that starts with "S" just for the fun of having monothiests make submissions to an organisation with those initials.

I had not thought of the suggestion as facist, maybe a bit "nanny state" - I'd prefer to decide the merits or otherwise of theologies and ideologies for myself. Maybe slap an AO or MA rating on the lot of them and let adults make up their own mind. Still there is something to be said for fines against those who repeatedly make unsubstainated claims about Theological and Ideological Trustworthiness (in the plural) - the money could go to prop up mental health units as they seek to undo the damage done by some of those theologies and ideologies (woops I did not substantiate that claim).

PK, as an IT graduate I missed most of the "ism" teaching as well. I can only recall one bad grade which I considered to be a result of having expressed a contrary view to a lecturer in matters political -my only 4 :( so sad. I did not feel the need with most lecturers to conform to their view points on matters idological or political, it really was a non issue in most subjects.

R0bert

Much of the content of this article is almost identical to (though somewhat better argued than) the atrocious piece of rubbish by Kev Donnelly last week, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4422. It even references Kev's SCEGS/Othello anecdote.

Melleuish claims that we are experiencing the “academisation of society”. I think he's got the bull by the foot, what we're getting is the CORPORATISATION of education. Thus we get educational outcomes, performance measures, benchmarking etc etc. Individuality is sacrificed on the altar of KPIs and standardisation.

I'm all for a dose of humanism and joy as an antidote to all this, but where do you fit that on the graph of output measures? As for the "bureaucratic dullness of the academy"; universities should be abolished if the weight of their administrative structures squash the minds therein. Universities are elitist (in the true sense of the word), they should be places that encourage independent thought. If those thoughts don't reflect the values of some people outside the institution, then tough luck.

onemack: That's a shame. I can understand where you're coming from, but maybe you just needed to play the game and adopt a "the means justify the ends" approach, and later reveal your true colours. I'm sure that's what the current crop of cretins did. A return to sanity will probably require such an approach.

PK: I found that like your B.Sc., my B.A. was surprisingly free from all the stereotypes of the Arts. Maybe it was just the departments I was involved in. I don't remember anything being discussed from a feminist, Marxist or post-modernist perspective in Classics. It seemed pretty traditional. History could have fallen into all that, but I did medieval history and we had this weird, intensely Catholic crew teaching that, so it was differently strange. Psychology was just a complete basket case and the academic staff seemed to be more openly concerned with their own inferiority complexes about being considered a "real science" than in getting into any "ism". Finally, the philosophy department at the University of Melbourne is notoriously conservative (in fact, it's so conservative that there's now a school of continental philosophy -- which didn't exist when I did my honours less than a decade ago -- in an attempt to balance out the heavily analytic nature of the department). One of our tutors (who was also the lecturer, and also a bigwig in Australian bioethics) in a political philosophy honours subject practically took the proverbial out of a politics honours student in our class for suggesting the term "violence" be broadened to describe the deep structures of our society. The department was really conservative. Maybe I was just lucky, but I actually didn't encounter any of these "isms" until after I finished my undergraduate studies, when I was more able to see through such bs.

As to the education faculty at U.M., I did encounter a few nutters in the teaching staff, though they tended to be just nutters of the "spelling isn't important" variety more than the "workers of the world unite" variety.

Maybe I was just lucky.

"Why not really hold teachers, academics, politicians and journalists to account?"

Attack the teacher's union, and you are accused of bashing teachers, attack teh academics and they shield themselves in a cloak of gobbledygook, and journalists only comment on it when their children are forced to study it, and, even then, only the Australia has the balls to consistantly attack it whenever possible.

Good article.

Perhaps this may not contribute anything to the debate but it is just a thought of mine:

I have had teachers (I am a English lit student) ask questions such as "Do you think _____ is a Marxist?" "Do you think there is a touch of feminism?" etc., and I find it very confusing. In the first place, not many people know what these terms mean and they aren't exactly explained very clearly in most cases I have been privy to. But I have also had more teachers who want to know what we personally get from the literature itself and who want us to explore why we interpret the literature in the ways we choose to. While they do touch on all these philosophies, rarely do they "ram it down our throat" as such - I find I am allowed to think for myself and if I am not, I do it anyway.

Perhaps it would be better to try to formulate one's own understanding of the text without influence and then perhaps once one has done that, attempt to see if it fits in with any other kind of philosophical standpoint, deterministic or otherwise and then perhaps figure out why one does see the text as such. Perhaps that would be a better method of analysis for students to learn to use. It is a method that helped me throughout my course and I feel I have a much deeper understanding of Literature and a greater passion for it because of it.

This is a very strong article and supports the continuing criticism of how education has been captivated by ideology. In the process we have lost the work of art and how that informs us of our humanity.

There is one nuance about postmodernism that should be addressed. The practice of theology has suffered under the modern regime in which only that which can be seen, touched and measured is thought to be true. Postmodernism, although parts of it are guilty of denying any kind of truth, opens the door to theology being practiced outside of the modern paradigm. That is, its is free to do its work using a rationality suited to its subject matter. Thus, for example, myth is not necessarily a dirty word but may be a means of conveying truth. The strange world of the bible is observed on its own terms and not in the terms imposed by modernism. Alasdair Macintyre has pointed out that there is more than one kind of rationality. We do not use the rationality of the chemistry lab when we read the metaphysical poets.

As for theology being open to rational enquiry, bring it on. However, if you bring the rationality of natural science to bear then all you will get is cynical refutation.

Gentlemen..gentlemen... (PK and Pericles)

Pericles. A humanist revival is called for, but it is linked to 'Christian/liberal/humanist' ideas, so I think my approach is entirely valid.

A call is made for something, and I am simply scrutinizing the thing being called for from a theological/philosophical perspective.

PK.. I'd prefer to be annoying than boring :) at least when my words 'annoy' someone it means they have considered them to a degree.

Urging me not to 'preach' as you lads put it, is indeed a tad fascist, "Now men, you can have any view BUT the Christian one"....duh

Pericles.. gotta love that little 'dammit now you've got me doing it' comment :) *grin*

I rejoice that you have a knowledge of the parable of the soils (often called the 'sower').. perhaps I can use that to 'point the bone' at PK and suggest that he is the 'path' where the seed dropped and the birds came quickly and took them away, so the seed came to nothing.

I would love to see a return to humanistic values, in the sense that they are basically Christian (apart from any which promote sexual deviance) in substance, if not in foundation.

But perhaps it is better that ideas have freedom to take their toll on society, so we can actually see just how wretched we will become without the moral and spiritual anchor that Christ provides.

What most don't realize is that today we are morally about at the point where society was just prior to the great evangelical awakenings. We don't have the 'new' morality, we just have the old immorality recycled. In between then and now, we had the refreshment of the Spirit in revival, but now, we have strayed, become lost, blind and naked.

We think we are much, but we are not. The church at Laodicea said

"I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing."

Jesus spoke to them : "But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked" Rev 3:17

B.D.
Your Revelation quote is a statement to the head of the church, it is they, not the heathen, that the author claims is "pitiful, poor, blind and naked". I believe the same prophetic critique could be made of the modern church, including the intelectual and spiritual shallowness of the christian perspectives put on this forum and other places.

Your avoidance of the hard issues, especially with bible quotes that contradict you such as polygamy (exodus 21) and virgin birth (Mathew 1) that I have challenged you on in other threads is not a witness to your faith but to the gaping holes in your human constructed ideology.

So a bible focused ideology that refuses to study the bible has no place in serious discussion. It is like a salesperson who refuses to answer questions about the fine print in the hope that the smootheness of their sales pitch will secure a sale.

So back to the subject, looking at reality through ideological blinkers, be it Christianity, Marxism, Feminism or anything else stifles intelectual and spiritual exploration. That is why our universities (and churches) churn out unchallenging conformists.

Jesus said the truth will set you free.

Those interested in more than polemic against postmodernism may be interested in this article by Kevin Hart in Zadoc Perspectives.

http://www.zadok.org.au/perspectives/issue60/articles/hart/hart6001.shtml

The article on Christian deconstructionism is interseting in that it opens doors but then quickly shuts them again.
By broadening notions of deconstructionism outside of traditional metaphysics is a good start, to truly understand, as best as we can from our own perspective, the context of biblical writers (or any text) and distinguish that from our own contemporay expectations (or constructions) of the text.

However it is not till the conclusion that the word "faith" comes in with no explanation of it's place in this deconstructionism. What is this faith? does it mean that we can believe in the virgin birth despite materialist logic to the contrary? Does it mean that we can embrace our own expectations of the texts even if we discover the context of their writing gives a meaning very different to our expectations?.

Christians talk about faith all the time but what does it mean?

Non-monotheist religions such as Budhism, Hinduism and Aboriginal religions talk of consciousness shifts, of enlightenment. There is no faith here but the deliberate rejection of perceptions of reality. In the vacuum that is left after the worldly clutter has been got rid of is the eternal, this is the space where we find "God" whatever that might be.

Non Christian meditation techniques are all designed to remove the clutter of life to make room for the eternal. However Christians (and Muslims and Jews) pray for specific things to a specific person and, therefore, maintain a strong attatchment to preconceived expectations (clutter) in their spiritual endeavours.

To truly have faith, we must abandon all those ideologies, including religion, and be prepared to look at the eternal without trying to define it in materialist or metaphysical constructs.

Acedemic Christians trying to keep up with modern deconstructionism need to go all the way instead of accepting deconstructionism as something relevent to just their acedemic tradition. I f they cannot apply it to their own sacred cows then they are missing the point alltogether.

Dear your majesty King Kanute

well said.. I'm glad you either took the trouble to examine the context of the revelation quote, or were already familiar with it.

I totally agree. The words of our Lord WERE directed at 'a' particular church. The point is, they have relevance to ANY body of people who 'think' they have it all, but don't. This applies as much to the secular lot as the churchy. There is little quite as 'Laodicean' as Feminazis and Marxists.

You suggest I avoid the hard issues ? Quite the converse, I suggest the real remedy instead of wandering around among the symptoms.

I don't need to engage with you on the issue of Polygamy, as it is quite apparent that it was a fact of Old testament life, but not of New testament teaching. There is a difference. Polygamy would probably be a fact of life for US also if we were perenially slaughtering each other village to village.

Your point about both the shallowness of some OLO Christian perspectives and the Laodicean condition of some of elements of the established church is quite valid, but heed the 'speck and beam' teaching please.(as must we all)

I maintain, that we will do best by a revival of heart and mind in Christ, rather than a revival of 'humanism' per se.
Lets subject the idea of a humanistic revival (without Christian foundations) to some scrutiny:

Choose a 'value' which u feel is currently being or already "lost" which you would restore ?

Then ask this question "If I'm asked by some young person who doesn't want to follow that value, 'Why should I'? -what will I say to him/her in order to give a firm unquestionable reason for him/her to follow it ?

If the only response u can come up with is 'because'.....then I rest my case.

BD,

"Choose a 'value' which u feel is currently being or already "lost" which you would restore ?

Then ask this question "If I'm asked by some young person who doesn't want to follow that value, 'Why should I'? -what will I say to him/her in order to give a firm unquestionable reason for him/her to follow it ?"

If the only response u can come up with is 'because my imaginary friend says so'.......then you have no real reason to attempt to compel that young person to follow that value.

It is then time to lead by example, live a life of such inspiration and integrity that others will seek to emulate it. I know that is a lot more difficult than uttering threats of eternal damnation but then that does not work so well nowdays either. Don't bother resting your case, it is time to conceed it and move on.

R0bert

BD
I am glad that you acknowledge polygamy was "normal" for the old testament including it's writers. Most christians deny this or try to explain it away with some creative contextualisations. - such as your assertion that new testament Hebrews had deviated from their polygamous norm of Gods law given to their patriarch Moses with the 10 comandments.

The next step for you is to acknowledge that Exodus 20, the 10 commandments, is followed by Exodus 21, rules for justice in polygamy. Exodus 21 is part of the law that god gave to Moses and begins with "these are the other laws that you must obey".

So it is interesting that you don't want to discuss polygamy but I am sure the 10 commandments are an important art of your world view. Why do you embrace some of god's laws and reject others outright?

So if I was to identify an old lost value in need of restoring from modern liberal misinterpretations of scripture, it would have to be polygamy..

May I suggest that your christianity is a human made illusion and construction every bit as much as marxism, feminism or post-modernism. It certainly has nothing to do with biblical morality.

And if I am correct that your morality is just a social construction, my answer to your question about how to force a young person to adhere to a social construction is irrrelevent as I would encourage them to seek the truth and make up their own mind.

I know this may be dissapointing for me and other bible believers if the young people in my life choose to have sex with one partner at a time instead of embarking on holy polygamy, but I guess I cant force the bible down their throat.

King Canute,
How do you define truth? How do young people with no life experience recognise what is true? Without education society would result in anarchy. That is why law is defined in social values. Violation of those social laws brings social penalties.

What is wrong with defining social values as viewed by principles of what is best and healthiest? That is exactly what was intended by the laws laid down by Moses. It was based in best social behaviour 'love of neighbour' and best health practise as they knew at the time.

I work with young people on the street and I can tell you they will do exactly what they feel is best for them at the moment. Their judgment is based on how they feel, not on what is universally socially best practise. I can tell you young people will do exactly as they please without thought of social consequences. Id behaviour must be educated and modified. Your last statement is a nonsense as the young people on the street have no conscience about sexual loyalty and threats to their health.

Quote, "And if I am correct that your morality is just a social construction, my answer to your question about how to force a young person to adhere to a social construction is irrrelevent as I would encourage them to seek the truth and make up their own mind...I know this may be dissapointing for me and other bible believers if the young people in my life choose to have sex with one partner at a time instead of embarking on holy polygamy, but I guess I cant force the bible down their throat.

Hi Philo,

I do not try and define truth, I try to perceive it, in the full knowledge that my perception will be biased, innacurate and certainly no absolute enlightenment. The attempt to define truth, and then argue about that definition is the same problem as universities, as per the issues of this thread. - the outcome of the argument is irrelevent to the truth.

The closest thing I can get to truth is, through meditation, purging all social constructs from my consciousnes, even for a limited time, and considering what is left without trying to define it.

This is different to post-modernism which appears to suggest that any illusion is as good/bad as any other but since illusions are all we have we may as well embrace the one that feels most comfortable.

Christianity however embraces some illusions as absolute and then promotes them as universal. this is no more the truth than other constructs that dominate the consciousness of acedemics and university departments.

May I respectfully suggest that your low view of the capacity of young people is because you meet them in prolonged crisis (I assume a lot from your streetwork comment here). This is the same as Freud generalising his findings of his rich neglected neurotic clients to a universal sexual dillema.

Healthy young people learn morality from before they are born, these people can make good decisions about anything. When the person, young or otherwise is subjected to stress, anxiety and unfortunate lifestyle circumstance, their capacity for clear decision making is very much limited, especially if in the context of substance abuse cycles which many young people on the street are in. The solution is not strong moral guidance (which happens naturally anyway) but in improving social conditions and mental health resources to the marginalised.

King,
Society needs defined social values to operate within. The examples of societies that have good and tested values have strict parential educational codes that are accepted by the whole of that society; Eg Japan, pre-Mao China. When everyone does what he individually feels is right we have anarchy and social disorder. That is part of the social problem we have in Australia today, not everyone follows the social codes.

There is a glaring hole in your argument. When did you loose your pre-birty knowledge of morality that you then had to find it by meditation?

First you state: "The closest thing I can get to truth is, through meditation, purging all social constructs from my consciousnes, even for a limited time, and considering what is left without trying to define it."

Second you claim: "Healthy young people learn morality from before they are born, these people can make good decisions about anything."

Tell me what morality you learned before you were born?

When most babies are born they are totally self absorbed and unconscious of others except milk and wampth. What happened to their knowledge of awareness of allowing mother some time for herself?

Morality is learned by observing example and parential correction of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. I have the care of 21 infant children in my home and I can say good behaviour did not happen naturally from birth, it was taught.

Dear Kanute

Lets be clear on one thing. Polygamy was not set forth as a 'law'.

It was accommodated within the wider social law in the historical/social context of the period. So, I guess we have to concede that a man having multiple wives is not quite the abhorrent thing it is often made out to be. Though, having said that, I see not a single example of a 'happy' polygamous marriage in the Old Testament. If you can find one, please share it with me.

One thing we can see from the matter of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar.
Sarah was Abraham's 'wife'. Hagar was her handmaiden. When Abraham went into Hagar and she conceived, God reminded Abraham that he would have a child through his 'real' wife, Sarah.

The only command of Exodus 21 are in the form of ‘IF’ a man.... he must not mistreat”
Clearly polygamy was not described as an ‘abomination’ as are bestiality, incest and homosexual acts.
The most I will say of the practice, is that it was a social necessity for survival at that time in history where many men were killed in battle, and multiple wives gave the opportunity for less men to produce more offspring.

To reject polygamy on the basis of the New Testament teaching is neither in contradiction to any ‘Law’ of the old testament, nor being ‘selective’ as you say.

Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, so in Him we see its full and true meaning.

The Divine law not a human social construct. Nor do I believe we can ‘force’ young people to follow it. All I’m saying is that we need a ‘framework’ to guide us all.
Neither Marxism, Feminism, Atheistic humanism nor post modernism has a framework with an enduring foundation.

Individual renewal in Christ is the best answer to social ills. It will cause us to be ‘fully human’ and live as we were intended to do.

Rob, threatening eternal damnation as a motivating force for social compliance is wrong. Informing people of its reality is not.

Gregory, like our "King" Johnnie too, gets it all confused when he says ..... "They lack the free will to make decisions and choices and must simply play out the hand that their class or gender or race has dealt them. Trapped within their gender, class and race they are to be de-humanised, considered not as individuals in their own right but as representatives of their particular group."

I suspect that we humans share many unconscious yearnings and that the freedom to follow our intellectual curiosities is one of the greatest. However, if we consider that we live in co-evolution with what our brains produce then our greatest potential lies in better learning how to learn where the true diversity is diversity of thought, of perspective and of creativity. Rather than assuming that our minds are like savings banks that we or someone else, just make deposits to, we need to actively find true diversity which includes an ability to adopt a framework of perspectives that can be inquiring, analytical, critical and evaluative. We can still have the "me" only, or the group or the ethnicity or the environmental, with some use of imagination, intuition and empathy.

Adopting a framework of perspectives is a means of diversifying away from the superiority of an “order” that masks the contradictions, subverts the degree of provisionality, cloaks the instabilities, blinds us to the fragmentary, and numbs us to the incoherent.

Why not celebrate fragmentation, provisionality, chaos, ambiguity, skepticism, conflict, vastness, disorientation, questions, confusion and incoherence? By all means challenge minds with reason, free inquiry, dignity, participation and imagination.

One of the problems with the "academisation" of thinking & doing is that it's so bloody ineffective, as has been shown in what passes for teacher-"training" and nurse-"training" in universities, where even the very word "training" is sneered at: results - teachers who can't hold their own in classrooms and nurses whose attitude seems to be that "I didn't do 4 years at uni to wipe your droopy old bum". Now we have media reports that newly "trained" doctors can't tell patients' aortas from their arses, since time is taken up with neo-Marxist interpretations of the [insert name of anatomical] system. Pre-Dawkins [Dorkins ?] didn't we have some efficient and practical CAEs that turned out qualified and trained people who could actually DO/MAKE/BUILD/CONSTRUCT THINGS, and free to think for themselves ?

BD
I first raised the polygamy issue with a look at the song of solomomon, a poem written by a man with sixty wives and 80 concubines preparing to seduce yet another virgin. He seemed happy.

Lets us be clear,
Ex 21 is the same as the 10 commandments. It is not (I think) gods law that we must have children, yet that is the relationship that the law "honour your father and mother" is based on. So polygamy is no more or less a law than procreation, just a fact of life that god’s law facilitates.

In light of your concerns about eternal damnation, perhaps it is dangerous for you and others to be defiantly misrepresenting the inspired word of god.

happy to continue this discussion on the sex ed. thread.

Philo

Again you seem to have a very dim view of human beings, that without a rigid structure we will all start raping and murdering ourselves. This is the philosophical argument for fascism. I tend towards the anarchist philosophy that human beings, if freed from hierarchical social structures and illusions will behave co-operatively and lovingly.

Jesus said that we must become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The unborn child at some stage, I don't know when, develops it's own consciousness. This consciousness is devoid of social constructs just as the ideal meditative state does - there is the link. As children are exposed to social constructions their innocence is polluted and this is where childrens behaviour problems come from. Same with adults.

21 infants is a big task that I have never tackled. I have however (in the past) fostered 6 siblings who were suffering all sorts of crises including incest. Their behaviour problems were immense and I say it was a direct result of their mis-treatment and not their natural selves. I watched them heal. None completely and some more than others. The value and structure that my family adopted in this case, that I believe caused the healing, was the joy of freedom.

Keiran said:

[Why not celebrate fragmentation, provisionality, chaos, ambiguity, skepticism, conflict, vastness, disorientation, questions, confusion and incoherence? By all means challenge minds with reason, free inquiry, dignity, participation and imagination.]

Umm.. I think a society which took this approach would last 5 minutes !
I'm wondering Keiran how 'far' you would extend this celebration ?
To social morality ? lets be diverse.... the bloke next door is married to his sheep and on the other side, that bloke is having sex with his kids, across the road there is an old man who has a worrying interest in young boys....

Yep.. moral relativism at its best.

Sorry Keiran, but that is the logical end game of what you are saying.
by all means celebrate diversity of 'opinion' about scientific things, and struggle for greater truth in this field, but social morality ? now thats a different story.

Puh-lease don't try to suggest that we all share the same innate sense of 'right' when it comes to sex and morals, we don't!

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (from Romans 1)

Boaz, when people discuss any issue they are likely to do so through different ..... even mutually exclusive ..... and often a priori sets of assumptions or beliefs about the nature of reality and the human place in it. For all perceptual, emotional, and behavioral purposes, people in fact can live in quite different realities. With such species dissociation, it is not unusual for different groups and individuals to be psychologically unable to draw compatible conclusions from the same fact. How do people then cope with this situation? Democratically? Heard of that Boaz? If we are to celebrate anything and especially morality and ethics, it needs to be within the context of democracy.

Boaz you certainly live in a choice neighbourhood with your comments ...... "the bloke next door is married to his sheep and on the other side, that bloke is having sex with his kids, across the road there is an old man who has a worrying interest in young boys....". How this man married a sheep has got me bleat but isn't it peculiar how we often find this abuse, and more, in exclusive religious playpens and often carried out by teddy cheerleaders. 'Corse, none of these teddies do democracy, plus never have/never will. Just seems you, Boaz, have a very serious strain of the teddy mind virus and represent seriously damaged goods....... a literal rote learner too. Care to enlighten all how you became infected?

ALSO, perhaps ewe can explain how it wasn't a bit sinful of Jesus not to give a straight answer when he supposedly said "Who do people say I am?" and "Who do you say I am? I feel his desires were inflamed with a lust for power over a few simple folk.

Boaz,
I would not bother to engage with Keiran, his basis of society has been tried back in primitive times, when every man did what he felt was right according to his own values. Where are those societies today? He calls this democracy. Moral democracy is a failure, as any society with strength and vision abides by a common and agreed set of moral values. It is just that Keiran has not evolved or developed in the social conscience mind. Obviously he is the type of person that would easily violate the law. How much dope has affected his mind we may not know but something is sure clouding his thinking.

Yes Boaz, I agree. Do not engage with differing opinions as you may find yourself considering something you are not supposed to, and ending up in hell. This is relevent to the topic as the major degeneration of acedemic institutions in the past few hundred years is that they have evolved flawed and sinful processes such as exploring the relationships between different philosophies and encouraging students to analyse, and even critique them.
You know how hard it is to find christian subcultures that adhere to gods word at the exclusion of heathen influence, do not allow this list to pervert what is left of your light. Put your head back in the sand before it is too late, you have allready admitted the normalness of Old Testament polygamy, who knows what these demons will force you to accept next next.

Follow coaches lead and ignore the tricky issues, it is the only safe thing for a good christian to do.

(Boaz, I appreciate our conversations including your willingness to engage from your own perspective. You are not the only perspective I disagree with on this and other forums but the reason I post on these lists is because I can discuss things with people who I would otherwise not meet, especially those with different perspectives) .

Yes King.. I also would not normally meet.. or more accurately, meet and be able to engage in such conversations as this.
If I tried it by door knocking, I would be given the short shift :) I'm sure.
But that is the beauty of the net. All we have to do is 'not' click on this or that thread. We are less threatened, and hence speak our hearts more bravely.

Keiran.. u poor sod.. :) muddling around in your teddy land there. Mate.. 'democracy' alone is NOT the answer to human social organization.

1/ Without some restraining values framework, giving ultimate purpose, it will degenerate into the squabble for power by those who have nothing better to do with their short lives.

2/ Democracy, good as it is in theory, usually ends up with an elite oligarchy where vested interest drives the agenda's of the major political parties. i.e. its about selfishness, greed and gratification.

3/ Sometimes, a simple democracy will be at the mercy of a totalitarian state, where the decision to goto war against some other state is made without reference to the will of the people. Then, even when Hitler is climbing up the cliffs of Dover, there will be 'anti war' morons in street bleating about not annoying him and how stupid war is.

Democracy without the preserving salt and the light of Christian values will destroy itself in a short time.

I truly believe you (atheist) blokes have either no clue about just where society would go or.. perhaps you prefer it that way, if you do, then I feel like pointing the bone at you. If u just don't realize, then I feel sorry for u because what is coming will overtake and consume u and ur famililes.

In conclusion, I believe we need a 3rd evangelical awakening, not a humanist revival.

BD - "In conclusion, I believe we need a 3rd evangelical awakening, not a humanist revival."

You go work on your evangelical awakening and we'll work on the humanist revival.

You might have to get a bit braver about challenging corruption within the church for your part though. Your approach of being ever so gentle with "christians" and confronting with non-christains seems to be a reverse of the NT model, that might be why you have so little progress. Have a read of the NT sometime looking at who the harsh words were targetted at.

Clean up your own backyard and your complaints about the neighbours lawns not being trimmed as well as they could be might make more sense.

R0bert

Philo is spiralling down with his lousy efforts to paint me as some type of law breaker and a user of powerful central nervous system stimulants. It is not hard to see where this faulty assessment originates but it's very, very, funny indeed and we all collapse laughing over that one.

Perhaps I've had one parking infringement in my life as a law abiding citizen. It's also so boring and seemingly a waste of time when I say I drink a half dozen cups of green tea a day and on the odd occasion olive leaf tea. I take a tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil and eat ten pekan nuts a day. Over twelve months perhaps a handful of beers .... so really no alcohol. No prescribed pills or tablets, preparations of any kind....... pretty boring isn't it ......... in my whole life I've never found the need for drugs as stimulants and only rarely has it been necessary for one or two panadols. I count my blessing every day that I remain healthy and somewhat intoxicated with life. Have always played sport and like being active... physically, mentally and participatory.

My life is about raising my consciousness, and not developing a conscience if that can be understood intelligently. The former is a thirst to understand the nature of my/our being while the later is born out of emotional blackmail by religious (teddy) cheerleaders. Probably harder to understand for the teddy infected types is that this blind attachment to moral behaviour is one of the major causes of crime in every shape and form.

Philo says ... "Moral democracy". Never heard of it. Sensitivity, judgment, initiative, imagination, reasoning, communication and even persuasion are part of consciousness and necessary for consciousness building in a democracy.

Yes, these somewhat nasty personal attacks by the christians are the last resort by some who cannot deal with the more weighty spiritual and philosophical issues of life. Others revert to infantile regurgitation of bible verse to achieve the same end.

It is not just Christians but also Feminist, Marxist, green, etc. ideologies when adopted by undergraduate zealots that do the same thing . But those young people grow out of their closed immature mentalities with time, some rejecting their ideologies alltogether and others going deeper into the ideological essences, exploring contradictions and paradox while rejecting trivial dogma. The difference here is it is easy to transcend a university text book, but the christians worship the text book and moving on requires a more traumatic psychological shift similar to the psychological "rebirth" that entrenched the textbook in their subconscious in the first place. This re-re-birth can be terrifying as an open mind can lead directly to rejection by peers and loved ones.

The drive to proslytize is not based on love compassion and connection, as Jesus taught, it only fulfills egoic responsibilities to ideological imperitives, for the edification of the evangelist not the "subject" (more accurately "object").

Robert, the very nature of a Spirit led awakening is JUST that... it reaches into the hearts of 'religious' people and turns them .. touching on all the secret sins and pet attitudes which are unbiblical, and produces repenetance at the deepest level.
Read about Evan Roberts etc.. (Wales)

King.. your point about young undergraduates growing out of their trendy ideologies etc is quite valid, but not for a mature Christian who's faith is grounded and rooted in Christ.

You seem to be ignoring the reality of Christ and the Apostles, including Paul, and choosing to neglect that which is before your eyes. Rather, turning away to something of your own choice, which in the end will prove empty and futile.

Some of the most precious words in the New Testament are:

"You, who were once far off, have now been drawn near in the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13)

I see you there, in the distance, lost, wandering.. aimless...like so many, taking the 'wide road'.....

I recommend you read the whole chapter of Ephesians2 ..it might scratch where you are really itching.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&version=31

Cheers

“…the reality of Christ and the Apostles, including Paul, and choosing to neglect that which is before your eyes. Rather, turning away to something of your own choice, which in the end will prove empty and futile.”

Feel free to ignore me BD (as you usually do) but can you point to the evidence of ‘the reality’ please? Grant me some opportunity to see the reality. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

And substantiate the empty and futile something else that you say exists for King, R0bert and others like them… please.

Thanks for the advice B.D. ... Watch out though, the itch turns into a rash if you do it to obsessively.

How does your regurgitation of bible verses without any deeper exploration coming from that reference differ from the naive fanaticism of undergrad politicians who may proclaim "you should read Green Left weekly" instead of "you should read ephesians"?.

B.D. you never answered my earlier question. Why is Exodus 21 in a different moral league entirely to Exodus 20? You should read Exodus!. If you explain the diference I promise I will read ephesians (again).

Stop defending your own prejudices about the bible and explore it and the rest of gods creation with an open heart and mind.

surely you can go the next step in the conversation with out more unexplained, out of context bible quotes as you have been recently.

Lets adjourn to the secular rationalism thread. You and I might be able to gang up together against western materialism and it's concommitant consciousnesses there.

I have more respect for you than "secular rationalism". You are a freak and I like freaks. God made us freaks. Secular rationalists are just people pretending not to be freaks.

Dear Reason,
the reality to which I point, is supported by the documents themselves, and by the experience of believers.
You probably don't have much 'faith' in the experiential nature of we believers.
The documents are indeed evidence, but I am fully aware that on some issues there is on going debate.

Higher criticism ( the scholastic kind, emanating often from Germany) usually starts of with the presupposition "Miracles cannot occur because science tells us so" then, they proceed to impose such a view on the Gospels declaring any mention of 'unscientific' miracle as 'myth'. I hope it is obvious why I have small regard for such an approach.

King...
I'll try

Big Context= Covenant Relationship between Israel and God. (Abraham.. Gen 12:1-3)
It was always intended to be universal not particular.
Israel was the vehicle, not the object of Salvation alone.
The covenant relationship was expressed via the 10 commandments, do you recall that the Ark of the Covenant contained.....(fill in the blank)..yes.. thats right the 'tablets of the 10 commandments'.
Not the host of other social/religious rules added after the 10.

I don't believe it is difficult to show that the "Law" is primarily limited to the 10. More important, was not the letter of the law, but the heart condition in relation to it. "Abraham believed God, and this was counted as righteousness". The social expression of this law, was explained to the Israelites in community. (Exodus 21 etc)

Personally, I think God was relating the 'Law' (the 10) to the specific cultural identity of that day. It all boils down to 'do for others...etc'

There are many layers of depth one can plumb in all this, its difficult to know the point where the eyes of the reader will glaze over though :)

P.S. I'm glad you challenge shallowness. Last Sunday I heard a pastor say "Remember the prayers God answered" to get them in the mood for worship. My mutterings was "He answered them ALL, just not with a 'yes' :)

Part One

Commonsense for a troubled world, as we might call it. Part taken from Dr Geoffrey Chia, cardialogist who believes that more wisdom and understanding is needed in modern global discussion, especially regarding international relations.

1. Like a trained medico curing an ill patient possibly close to a mental breakdown, we must work together using the best known means available.

2. The topmost principle to bind such persons together surely must contain wisdom, meaning the persons we need must not only be learned and trustworthy but also compassionate

4. According to Dr Chia, owing to today’s overload of information, especially concerning international relations, we now have to be so careful about ascertaining the real truth of situations, especially political ones such as regards Iraq and Iran. Dr Chia would surely add a rider stating - “ with no interference from not only presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state, but also from persons with strong conflicting interests, especially in oil, which locks out Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

Bushbred Part Two

5. Certainly there will be more weeding out, with special personages of proven capability chosen to gather all vital historical information, then encouraged to move out alone into a desert - so to speak - taking the overhead view, not taking any sides.

6. However, this taking of the Socratic view, as some might call it, even as regards the whole Middle East since WW1, might create much more debate, because such a view could leave the Arabs and Iranians justifiably ahead of the West

7. Still taking the overhead view, we might say that besides Western penetration into the Middle East, coupled with the thirst for fossil fuels, there is not only the problem of letting Israel settle in what had become Arab or Islamic territory for over a thousand years, but also allowing Israel to break UN rules and go militarily nuclear - in so doing very seriously altering the balance of power in the Middle-East. Hence the anger in Iran

8. To many people it would seem that agreeing with Dr Chia’s philosophical reasoning. locks out Christianity, even liberal Christianity. But maybe using a nonbiased or spatial view, could be close to a true humasist view or even a dinkum Aussie view, or even a true Christian view, making us reflect on what rotten selfish bastards we’ve become, like back in the colonial days, believing that the term liberalism denotes the freedom to gain over the weak, rather than what it does mean, looking after your neighbour, and even your enemy as it says in the Sermon on the Mount

We can only indulge in "Humanism",so long as we have done our homework and make sure that our economy runs efficiently enough to buy the time for such introspection.

Life without a survival component is equally meaningless.We also need disciple to mould our intellect and character.There must always be a balance.Too much humanism produces a wishy washy self indulgent society that expects the State to provide everything.

Other than Humanism, we have a number of alternatives.

1/ Islam.

Saudi Arabia has its Wahabis and Salafis.

Iran has a goose stepping army, a Leader who believes in his own divine destiny, and sees visions, and believes in the 'great catastrophe' and return of the 'Madhi'. He is also adamant about acheiving Nuclear Weapons.. (in spite of the "Taqiya" deception)

Syria has its genocidal son of a genocidal dictator

Sudan is in process of genocide even on fellow Muslims (sorry, wrong skin color)

2/ Christian Values Society
Or.. we can have a Christian based society, pretty much what we have now, although we have strayed about as far as a society can from God without self annihalation or divine retribution. (watch this space, specially Sydney)

3/ Various other religious/philosophy based.

Or..we can have Judge Alistair Nicholsons version.. "Man/Woman marraige legislation is 'Christian' and its not needed".. sure..ok Judge.. there is also (following your logic) no reason for not allowing CROSS SPECIES marraiges.. hmmmm There is also nothing to stop HUGE gaps in age.. male/male.. Male/Female, Female/female....

I can see Nambla gloating with joy over that little effort of his.
Just a small step....but in the RIGHT direction they are saying.
(Australian family court Judge says same sex marraige is 'ok'.. Tomorrow, if we keep up the pressure, same sex with HUGE AGE gaps will be ok.)

THAT.....is humanism.. unrestrained by a moral anchor, firmly grounded in revealed truth.