Comments on: 3. “The Denunciation of Gods” http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/ On the Constituents of Emptiness Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:19:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Dave http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-3963 Dave Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:36:10 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-3963 And those cherubim were to depicted in a passionate embrace. And those cherubim were to depicted in a passionate embrace.

]]> By: Tim Bulkeley http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-243 Tim Bulkeley Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:13:49 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-243 "growing imperceptible" is really nice, yet also somewhat misleading. For example the prophets regularly declare "this is the word of YHWH" both tendencies are present in the literature... “growing imperceptible” is really nice, yet also somewhat misleading. For example the prophets regularly declare “this is the word of YHWH” both tendencies are present in the literature…

]]> By: Jesse Wilbur http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-161 Jesse Wilbur Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:15:55 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-161 Matthew, In response to the notion that this format has little to offer vs. paper-based editorial practice, I disagree. What is missing from paper is simultaneity. I can read your comment at the same time as a hundred others. And we can all contribute independently, without coordination between parties. This format does still battle against shotgunning comments before the full argument is made. This treatment grows out of another experiment in which only a single paragraph was presented at a time, which faced the shotgunning issue to the extreme. We're still working out ways to weave a conversation out of individual comments and threads. Thanks for your insight. Matthew,
In response to the notion that this format has little to offer vs. paper-based editorial practice, I disagree. What is missing from paper is simultaneity. I can read your comment at the same time as a hundred others. And we can all contribute independently, without coordination between parties.

This format does still battle against shotgunning comments before the full argument is made. This treatment grows out of another experiment in which only a single paragraph was presented at a time, which faced the shotgunning issue to the extreme. We’re still working out ways to weave a conversation out of individual comments and threads. Thanks for your insight.

]]> By: Matthew Battles http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-147 Matthew Battles Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:52:25 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-147 content note: The Whitehead quote troubles at first, but its implications are compelling, and I hope you explore them elsewhere. Progress (nb: as distinct from evolution) always offers trouble; things do seem to fluctuate along a mono-poly continuum--cults do rise and fall. But behind the notion Whitehead articulates, there's the prospect of an ecology of belief--the unfolding or evolution of the frameworks of disbelief that all religions must fabricate. A picture of how *this* process occurs may well provide an historiographic scheme for any account of atheism. Put more directly, is Atheism a species of the disbelieving that any religion must cultivate, or is it sui generis? interface note: I'm not sure what I think of this commenting format, as it encourages shotgun blasts of commentary before the whole essay has been digested. You may well have elsewhere disposed of the question I offer above, in which case I've added little value to the work. Of course, I could exercise some restraint, and read the whole thing before returning to comment--but if used in that way, this interface has little to offer in comparison with paper-based editorial practice. content note: The Whitehead quote troubles at first, but its implications are compelling, and I hope you explore them elsewhere. Progress (nb: as distinct from evolution) always offers trouble; things do seem to fluctuate along a mono-poly continuum–cults do rise and fall. But behind the notion Whitehead articulates, there’s the prospect of an ecology of belief–the unfolding or evolution of the frameworks of disbelief that all religions must fabricate. A picture of how *this* process occurs may well provide an historiographic scheme for any account of atheism.

Put more directly, is Atheism a species of the disbelieving that any religion must cultivate, or is it sui generis?

interface note: I’m not sure what I think of this commenting format, as it encourages shotgun blasts of commentary before the whole essay has been digested. You may well have elsewhere disposed of the question I offer above, in which case I’ve added little value to the work. Of course, I could exercise some restraint, and read the whole thing before returning to comment–but if used in that way, this interface has little to offer in comparison with paper-based editorial practice.

]]> By: Shashi http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-146 Shashi Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:53:21 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-146 Hi How is it possible to have multiple threads in one line? Hi How is it possible to have multiple threads in one line?

]]> By: David Sewell http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-126 David Sewell Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:14:43 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-126 The phrase "became atheists with respect to" here is a legitimate usage, I'd say. It's certainly a common rhetorical tack, e.g. Richard Dawkins's "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." The phrase “became atheists with respect to” here is a legitimate usage, I’d say. It’s certainly a common rhetorical tack, e.g. Richard Dawkins’s “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

]]> By: William Bailey http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-125 William Bailey Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:19:04 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-125 I think Deuteronomy may protest too much, as the impulse toward syncretism, I suspect, was natural and ongoing. Polytheism doesn't just give way to radical monotheism without a protracted, ongoing struggle. I think Deuteronomy may protest too much, as the impulse toward syncretism, I suspect, was natural and ongoing. Polytheism doesn’t just give way to radical monotheism without a protracted, ongoing struggle.

]]> By: William Bailey http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-124 William Bailey Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:12:03 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-124 Is God "growing imperceptible" or has Jewish theology become more sophisticated? Is God “growing imperceptible” or has Jewish theology become more sophisticated?

]]> By: pete whitfield http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-106 pete whitfield Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:40:26 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-106 I just couldn't resist commenting - what a fantastic feature. I just couldn’t resist commenting – what a fantastic feature.

]]> By: Weblogg-ed » Commenting Evolves http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-102 Weblogg-ed » Commenting Evolves Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:41:30 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-102 [...] Well the folks over at Future of the Book are working on it. Check out this text by Mitchell Stephens where, after selecting a section from the left hand margin, you are basically able to click into a specific part of the post and offer feedback. (Here’s a particularly interesting back and forth on one section.) Pretty cool, I’d say. Even cooler is that they’re planning to release this as a WordPress plugin at some point. Talk about being able to debate certain points within the whole. [...] [...] Well the folks over at Future of the Book are working on it. Check out this text by Mitchell Stephens where, after selecting a section from the left hand margin, you are basically able to click into a specific part of the post and offer feedback. (Here’s a particularly interesting back and forth on one section.) Pretty cool, I’d say. Even cooler is that they’re planning to release this as a WordPress plugin at some point. Talk about being able to debate certain points within the whole. [...]

]]> By: James http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-93 James Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:37:05 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-93 The Romans considered the early Christians atheists because they didn't worship their ancient gods. They weren't really concerned with belief, though. It was about practice. They were especially concerned with the worship of the genius of the emperor. Atheist seems to be the right term, but its meaning probably needs some unpacking. The Romans considered the early Christians atheists because they didn’t worship their ancient gods. They weren’t really concerned with belief, though. It was about practice. They were especially concerned with the worship of the genius of the emperor. Atheist seems to be the right term, but its meaning probably needs some unpacking.

]]> By: mitch http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-90 mitch Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:09:15 +0000 http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/holyofholies/3-the-denunciation-of-gods/#comment-90 I do think this movement -- these denunciations -- lead away from certain kinds of gods. Such losses tend not to get computed. I do think this movement — these denunciations — lead away from certain kinds of gods. Such losses tend not to get computed.

]]>