DrJim

Regardless of the popularity of the concept in ancient or modern philosophy, it is not at all far removed from the bigotry in early 20th century academics that saw "primitive" peoples as living a life less "evolved" and less "fully human" than European Christian white folk.

If the offending paper was going analyze Christian views on the fuller humanity of the gospel, then I would have no problem. The issue I take is that the author seems intent of promulgating that view.

Many denominations of Christianity have caused untold hardship among indigenous people around the world in their complicity with colonial powers to "civilize" them. In Canada this amounted to wholesale kidnapping of native children and their exile to residential schools: the harm done there has not, and is not, likely to be undone.

I cannot separate the theoretical, airy-fairy waffle of theologians about "suffering" and its remedy from real, down to earth suffering. Regardless of what this "professor"/theologian has to say about abstract concepts or ideals as fitting human needs, the way she is going about is perpetrating an ideology that has dehumanized real humans. That her theological society finds her work acceptable and presentable in a public forum is reprehensible. That it then becomes part of an academic meeting that it technically open to anyone willing to pay their dues and has obligations to academic standards is a disgrace.

Amaleq13

The potential derail posts have been moved here: http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=262271

Management

andrewcriddle

I can quite understand, (though not agree with), the position that Christianity is not a way to a "fully human life". What I find genuinely surprising is the position that discussion of what is or is not a "fully human life" is intrinsically bogus.

Unless we are committed to crude forms of hedonism or utilitarianism, then questions about which ways of life are fully human seems inevitable. Unless we are prepared to discuss these issues it is difficult to say that any chosen way of life is not only bad for others but bad for the chooser.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with the position argued in the paper. It is less clear that it is an illegitimate position to be presented at an academic conference.

(I am reluctant to divert this thread into a discussion of the right way for modern governments to deal with tribal minorities, and I am at least very uneasy about the practices to which you refer. However, do you condemn in principle the attempt to provide a "modern" education for children from such groups ? Or only the abuses which were sadly frequent in practice ?)

Andrew Criddle

spin

It's a pulpy relativistic value judgment based on nothing that serious scholars can discuss with any objectivity. It is merely a bunch of people from G8 countries pissing in each other's pockets.

Sorry, Andrew, but have you thought about what the term actually might mean? If you have a clear idea, will it be the same as what the next person I ask would say??

"[T]hese issues"? "[F]ully human"? What about "fully animal"? Can you be fully animal? Or can a gorilla be fully gorilla? Isn't a gorilla already fully gorilla? Perhaps you can get hormone treatment to be "more fully human". The terminology is so poorly conceived that it guarantees the level of scholarly dicussion -- a level that ordinary scholars would sidestep. It's up there with Miss Congeniality desiring, like, world peace.

If you want to deal with improving people's lives, that's something you can speak meaningfully about, do something meaningful about. By all means deal with it in your parish or the local chapter of the rotary club or hassle a politician, but it's simply not the scope of discussion material for an organization aspiring to be scholarly in the context of biblical literature.


spin

Susan2

So rather than take the helm, chicken out? Do the scholars that chickened out, get to whine latter when they don't agree with the concensus? Write a book, make that money, screw that world peace shit, I was only pretending? Tricky, tricky.

spin

Read what I said. Try.


spin

Susan2

Can you say please? Just think spin, that might make you more fully human.

spin

Had you read what I said, you'd know that I thought the term "more fully human" ill-conceived and dysfunctional. Ask yourself when is a person less fully human? When they are dead? When someone cuts off a limb? Such vague psychobabble means nothing.


spin

Susan2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...72273825999151

Perhaps you might want to watch the documentary linked above. It is titled The Century of Self.

There are those, within the intellectual/scholarly communities who believe we are just animals, sheep for slaughter. And, they seek to exploit the frailties/vulnerabilities of human beings for their own political/religious/philosophical, and financial gain.

Science categorizes mankind as animals, mammals more specifically. Are we mere animals? Or, is there something that sets us apart from animals? Why are we called human beings? What is the difference between human beings and animals?

Animals display many behavioral traits that humans display. Scientists study animal behaviors and compare those behaviors to humans. Animals display forgiveness. Do humans display forgiveness? Which is more forgiving, animals or humans? If I am more fully human (humane/intellect), and not leaning more toward my animal, bodily functions (passions), am I more or less forgiving.

I used the concept of forgiveness because it is more in tune with a theological discussion. And yet I don’t think that science nor religion have provided a ‘fuller’ understanding of exactly what forgiveness is or isn’t.

From what I have gleaned, forgiveness is more a commandment in religion. Guilt is often experienced by those who cannot meet that requirement, perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Whereas, in science, forgiveness is more a process, which in my opinion is a more humane rending.

Religion traditionally demands reconciliation as a part of forgiveness. Scientists recognize that reconciliation is not always possible. Reconciliation is often a “my way or the highway” philosophy in religion. Is that leaning to being more humane, or more toward animal instinct of survival of the fittest? Might makes right?

I would also ask, is it possible to over forgive?

I disagree with you that the term ‘more fully human’ is psychobabble.

Having said that, if you do not agree, then we can agree to disagree.