Conversations with TLC | Luke Thompson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- As "This Little Corner (of the internet)" (TLC) engages with metamodernism and its relationship to Christianity, I'll be dialoging with various members to see how folks are putting the pieces together.
Here, I chat with Luke Thompson, a frequent live-streamer and conversation partner in TLC.
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm looking forward to this. Thank you for reaching out Brendan and welcome to the TLC
17:34 Luke we just spoke about this. We will get there slowly but surely and these conversations are needed to model this type of conversation and "progress"
Not all dialogs are fruitful, TLC exists as long as it is fruitful.
@@williambranch4283agreed
Excellent conversation folks! Really appreciate the composure and insights you both brought to the table.
Wow, another fantastic conversation, Brendan and Luke! I love the give and take here. Brendan, I appreciate you sharing your anxiety around putting all your articles of clothing on one peg-and then what happens if that peg falls off...Luke, I am particularly struck by how many overlaps I have with you. I don't know that I have yet encountered anyone with such a similar set of influences: Orthodoxy, Spiral Dynamics, John Vervaeke, Christian Universalism, David Bently Hart, Fr. John Behr, 1st Corin. 9:22, and Rob Bell. I love to hear a fellow Orthodox expressing free thought and wrestling in good faith with thorny issues. Bravo!
I highly recommend catching some of Luke’s morning live streams on his own channel and on @grailcountry. Many of these topics are discussed regularly. Lots of other stuff too, but you seem like you’d fit in!
Always nice to feel less alone or weird. Solidarity is a strong thing.
That said, I probably need to learn to be more comfortable with not needing solidarity. Being ok being "alone" with G-d.
Thanks for the comment and the email, G. Look forward to engaging with you more however that arises in the future.
Luke is a titan of thought
And at such a young age! - Sensei (KFP)
This was great! I think Luke did the best job (from what I’ve seen) of explaining to Brendan why the historical/critical is not emphasized in TLC, and Brendan did the best I’ve seen of clarifying why he keeps bringing that up.
The best answer to the “the TLC” issue is just to realize that we are now currently in TLC.
Just say “here”
“Here in TLC”
“Welcome to TLC”
“Conversations within TLC”
Yep, you cannot escape! One of us! One of us!
Nice conversation! I appreciate how Luke boils it all down to “how do I live”. Despite Luke’s tendency to say “I don’t care “ very much about modernity’s historical/criitical findings, it also seems the case that his research: historical, theological & historical critical into ideas about “hell” transformed his thinking and outlook on his theology & particular choice of what church or body he would like to participate in. Thanks
Yes, it does indeed matter. And thanks for pointing to that in my own experience.
I just wouldn’t forefront propositional knowledge or intellectual analysis as it specifically and unconsciously occludes everything subterranean to it. Which it’s built upon.
@@WhiteStoneNameYou’re welcome. Scientific materialism ? Agreed.
Loved this. Truly. Happy worlds colliding moment.
1:02:28 - gentlemen, great, honest discussion. You guys are being authentic and clear about your beliefs and politely yet productively kind of sparring back-and-forth to get to great points like this. Thanks for the great discussion and appreciate what you’re both doing in your respective corners.
36:55 but here we do brush up against why Christians in Luke’s tradition or mine reject the Book of Mormon as a sacred text. A significant reason is that we do not see the story it tells as corroborating with a history can stand multiple tests of veracity. Christ as a Jungian archetype is different than Christ as a person in history. The Pauline corpus is important on multiple levels, but one of which is that it gives us a historical window into the early views of followers of The Way attesting to the Lordship of Jesus before (at least some epistles) the composition of the Gospels themselves.
Desire for the Personal requires a desire for the Real, and history should help us pursue the Real (via an epistemology of love)
I am curious how would you apply your framework to the “reality “ or “unreality “ of Judaism , Buddhism or the Vedic corpus?
This whole conversation is fascinating. Enjoyed your discussion of history. Here's an anecdote to consider: the 12th-century French hermit St. Adjutor went on crusade in his youth. He was taken prisoner in the Holy Land but claimed that one night, he dreamed that Mary Magdalene and Bernard of Tiron visited him and led him out of prison. The next morning, he woke up in France with his broken chains next to him. Five men, whose names are recorded in an official account, later attested that they had been in prison with him on the date in question and he had mysteriously disappeared. People in France could attest to the date he appeared there. Statements like this generally count as good evidence for historians. But most historians would conclude this event did not occur as reported. Why?
Interesting story and question, Laura. Thanks.
See my answer to Yosef. Faith is primary.
Scripture for me is a way-into the Holy Spirit. Doesn't actually matter if it is pre-Jewish or post-Christian ... but I apply the discernment I have developed continuously over time.
You’ve got a new profile picture!!!!
Enjoyed the conversation!
8:05 IDK about this. In BOM and In Jacob's ladder there is plenty of discussion regarding Biblical Criticism.
"If I'm wrong about this whole Christian story thing, what's the worst that could happen?" Said the Early Metamodern Christian Martry as he walked into the colosseum.
Martyrdom is bad theology
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey WHAT?! Howso?
That's like a whole conversation. I think martyrdom is central to theology. Whoa. Your response was very surprising...
Fascinating. Also, hopefully you know from our conversation that I mean this in no judgement. I'm just genuinely curious what you mean by that. Or having it fleshed out.
@@WhiteStoneName A stingy reply, I admit. ;) I just mean that martyr psychology is often pathological and not oriented towards flourishing. Obviously, people should stand up for their beliefs, values, and ideals when threatened, but the valorization of suffering and losing everything for the sake of remaining dogmatically unflinching doesn't strike me as the optimal angle. The role that martyrdom plays in religious traditions is often the product of memetic capture, wherein individuals become expendable so the larger meme can propagate. It also, of course, feeds justifications of religious violence, as we see so clearly from the idealization of martyrdom in the Islamic tradition. Psychologically, there's something very disturbing going on in the ancient texts extoling martyrdom. There's a sick sort of sadomasichism in the Felicita and Perpetua stories, for instance, where the more torture and rape they experience the more glorified they become. It all reeks of a dark asceticism that needs some fresh air. We'd do well to leave the martyr ideal in the past.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Hmmm. Lots of thoughts. I'm not familiar with the Felicita and Perpetua stories. Will check them out.
I would starkly distinguish between proper Christian martyrdom and voluntary suffering (transformation, becoming, "to undergo") vs. a rigid, fear-based, sadomasochistic, egoic "martyrdom". That's what I was illustrating from my livestream about Peter Rollins's work on ideological jouissance and memetic rivalry/scapegoating and violence.
I'm very with Rene Girard that Christ came to put an end to violence through his absorption of it and then making it the means of transformation.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
(and enemies, "father forgive them, they know not what they do")
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey you don’t have Christianity without its central martyr, Jesus Christ.
1:15:45 podcast from Rob Bell on the “Robcast” is called “Awareness of awareness”, episode 304
Awareness is both general and specific (focus).
"Hard problem of perception" aka the person aka the interpretative structure.
Lukes a beast
Thanks, dawg. You get it.
Interesting conversation. For some reason, your channel inspires me to reflect on my evangelical upbringing and new atheist experience the most. I enjoy your framing (and the openness to any framing being destroyed by critical thought).
And i like it when your chats are not competitive towards each other so much, but rather towards the intellectual material available, and unavoidable.
My indoctrination was so long ago, but i remember thinking that I had something so amazing and so easily available that i felt guilty that others didn't have it too. Atheism isn't "amazing" because it wasn't easily available to me in the emotional sense. But i did reach a point of feeling guilty, again, only this time for being liberated from that fundamentalist construct - while other evangelicals i knew remained entrenched in it.
The internet provides so much for those interested in testing the validity and relevance of their personal philosophies. Which is why i found your channel. :)
Great convo. I really enjoyed it, and I look forward to the conversation w/ Grail Country. :) I do feel like there's a bit more threading of the needle to be done on propositional knowledge and where it's authority comes from, what's good about it, and where it falls down. In many ways TLC is VERY propositional. To the casual observer that is what is forefronted. But the enacted rituals of the community are all about re-situating the propositional so that it is in service to the personal.
100% Michael.
Maybe you and I should schedule a convo on propositional knowledge and its value and utility? The biggest criticism laid out toward me is that I'm anti-propositional or that I don't value it at all.
Which is not true. I think it's valuable, but I think of it primarily as potential to be embodied. It's a future-mapping/orienting gift, *if lived out*. And because of our self-deception and tacit dimensions (lack of complete self-awareness), we often conflate our self-identity and propositional knowledge with lived reality (being).
42:04 it matters less then people think but it's we must be very sensitive in such a conversation. I prefer to see it as another pair of glasses one can wear when confronted with such a tension
I remember seeing the band Hayseed Dixie and chatting to the guy standing next to me. He explained that the banjo player was the best in the world regarding the particular style of picking the banjo player used.
I suddenly realised that he was trying to justify why he liked the band and why he invested his time and money into the band.
This realization of mine explained a lot of people's actions, including many Christians who feel the need to defend their actions.
Watching Hayseed Dixie needs no defence, it was such a fun gig, they were great performers and besides, the lead singer happened to drink in the same pub as me and we were friends.
@WhiteStoneName
Amen. That point is well-taken and I agree. We are often trying to convince ourselves in our arguments. It’s why I love peter Rollins ai much.
48:33-49:52 this is the best segment (to date) that I have heard from Luke.
John behr, man. 🤌🏼
35:00 Seconding Chezi- we have plenty of historical-critical discussions in TLC but they aren't happening so much around Luke's parts of TLC. A lot of those discussions are between the Christians and non-christians of TLC, and are especially fueled when Fr. Stephen de Young pops in or when someone is very into Heiser or Tabor (but we also engage Boyarin, Adler, Mazar, Finkelstein, etc) and then of course our resident Unitarian Sam Adams with his historical-critical breakdown of tbe development of the Trinity in the early Fathers. Most of these discussions are focused on the second temple era- both judaism and the early christian movement
Yes, the historical-critical stuff doesn’t matter very much to me. Knowing WHAT IT MEANS is more fundamental and preeminent. Faith is primary.
25:25 this! As Rabbi Akiva warned his companions who entered PARDES (mystical layers of Torah Text interpretation) "when you see the pillars of water don't say "water water" as in don't assume you understand
Beautiful.
If Tom Lukeson's facial profilicity doesn't confuse you, nothing will ;-)
Ooooh! This will be fun!
Yes : )
Agreed
Excellent
My favorite!!!
1:07:00
This wouldn’t trouble me at all as a Christian
51:14 For most of history religion was a set of particular cultural practices. This idea of a universal lens or unified truth is a Christian one. This is the exclusive inclusion that I think Luke is pointing to
Nate Hile talks about how Christianity is the religion beyond religion
I feel your concern Brendan. Creationism isn’t popular in the corner or at large in Christianity but one of the benefits of that field is how it shores up your faith far beyond just 6 day Creation. You mentioned archeology and CMI for example regularly highlights archaeological finds that support the historicity of the bjble. I credit Creationism for the confidence of my faith. And as you say it’s rooted in science or reality and those ways of knowing which you find confidence in.
Interesting. Can you clarify: Are you a Creationist?
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Yes, biblical creationist or young earth creationist
This guy, Luke, is in TLC? I’ve never seen him before in my life.
Might be a true statement, if you accept the multivalence-polysemy of language…
Luke is a theological chameleon ... which is a beautiful thing. But he isn't ready to go Super-sayan with a full beard yet ;-{> Coen Broes are deep Zen.
Luke that is a dope ass sweater son. break out the pipe ❤
Luke says spiral Dynamics whatever integral Theory. It shows how much he is always playing non zero sum games.
The very fact that spiral Dynamics in intergal theory i believe had a huge Schism between these "metamodern"
groups shows how much they were still playing tribalistic games. this what i feel Brendan and Luke are trying to over come in reconciling opposing views
The question is how long will TLC chaotic structure still hold
"Everyone in the American political landscape is a conservative, they just have different values" That's funny bc I always say almost everyone in America is some kind of liberal
Interesting. Probably true in ways as well. Like our “conservatism” is under the auspices of our larger implicit liberalism.
1:04:00 This is a great point and well articulated
Yes. Relistening, I heard him more deeply. Seems like he gets it.
I found this painful, anyone got feedback?
😬
Tom Lukeson strikes again! 🤠
That thumbnail Luke!
I feel like it's a toss up between "TLC" being conversative or liberal theologically.
Brendan's concern or aim seems to be centered around practical and plausible pluralist unity at a global scale, as facilitated through meta-modernism. This would have to be a unity of westernized Islam, westernized Secularism, and westernized Christianity. PVK and large swathes of TLC would assert that the particulars would be shared Christian values regardless of self-identity. Even the premise of a desire for unity at a global scale is Christian and Western. Chinese secularism would have no voluntary unity with any of this. Russian secular/Christian nationalism is severely at odds with this. A whole menu of traditional Islamic views have next to no common ground with Brendan's perspective or TLC's. What is stopping any of these actors with significant and separate identities from using the tools of science, modernity, technology, culture in ways that benefit the in group? Why is there good faith when your frame is that you are objectively playing a materialist game theory for the in-group? Why should any non-WEIRD country value sincere pluralist self-sacrifice? The fundamental point of friction here is that TLC (mostly/arguably) believes that the grounds for globalist pluralism Brendan is pursuing is Christ, not in sum or essence but in part.
Brendan's points are important and significant, so I'm not trying to devalue the wisdom and perspective he is bringing to the discussion. I appreciate his contribution to a spirit of intellectual honesty in Christianity, as there have been many stubborn thinkers who have stuck to dogmatic assumptions that overlap with science eg. flat earth geocentrism, young earth creationism, etc.
Good comment. Thanks. Genuinely.
38:00 i can only speak for myself, but the ‘I don’t care’ depends on how the current historical perspective is different from what was previously accepted.
Does it have the same ‘spirit’ and intention?
For example if it wasn’t physically Paul who wrote the letter but it was someone transcribing his words or someone who was there trying to honestly represent him. That is very different from finding out it was a huckster trying to impersonate Paul.
I see now they touched on this shortly after lol
I’d really love to share in conversation with you Brenden
Yes, I'm looking forward to it. I believe we still need to lock in a date/time?
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey yes we do.
1:06:58 I recommend reading Israel Knohl
27:48 For what? This step is missing. What is science for? Everything needs to be nested in a narrative or it is useless. I’m all for science as a very good tool but it is nothing to build my life around
So correct.
Science, itself, was birthed aka cultivated in the nest of CHRISTENDOM.
@@matthewparlato5626 love you Calvin!
1:06:10 this is a very complicated argument. Archeology is not a hard science and even archeologists, especially more recent ones trained in post-modern anthropology, keep pointing out the fundamental weakness of archeology. For a less 'post-modern' take, archeologist Yonasan Adler's origins of judaism very clearly lays out, after bringing a large archeological argument to bear, the inherent weaknesses of archeology, beyond just its materialist skew. Biblical archeology is a poor example perhaps for your point bc it's an extremely contentious field- often because there are a lot of explicitly religious and anti-religious people involved in it that have very strong narratives they are trying to support. Almost any other part of archeology would have been less of a minefield and your points could have landed better
❤ you Yosef
The problem with all this "historical analysis" is that BGD (and others) miss the point.
What the West, and most the globe via Jesus "smuggling", now recognize as Humane or Righteous has been forever transformed... a paradigm shift.
And any decent analysis* of history* tells you that.
...starkly, undeniably, and irrefutably.
And I enjoy BGD and have been in MM territory for quite some time, but this is the issue. There's an indeterminate amount of "evidence" for and against the position of Biblical veracity. One can choose to focus on that which incurs his doubt. Or one can recognize that the world we know today is because of Jesus Christ and his story.
"To speak from* the human experience, beyond* the human experience is sophistry."
1:02:56 what has greater causal power? (Science or religion).
Depends on the telos of the intention/will (nous?).
Sconce is great are giving us what we think we want.
What we need? I don’t think so.
Science has no telos. Telos is metaphysical. Also we misread "causal" as being cause/effect moving forward. Reality isn't a falling row of dominoes. Causal is forward, backward and coincident ... divine ;-))
Maybe we need both.
@@RichardCosci the danger of getting what you want is that it may kill you.
Babel.
But that’s maybe ok, too.
22:22 @whitestonename Are you Vervakeianite? The way you phrase things gives me the impression. I don’t think Vervaeke himself makes this moves, but a lot of his followers divorce propositions from reality. I’ll agree with you guys that reality isn’t reducible to propositions. But propositions when used properly testify of something beyond it. So outright dismissing it is an error.
To your question above, it’s not an either or but a both and. However, that doesn’t mean that science is then equal with religion. It’s nested inside it, science because of religion, reason because of faith.
You nailed it. But just touched it...temporality is the key. He can draw his lines for the dimensions of the trial case that proves science supreme.
But that's not how existence goes...there is no set parameters for the experiment that is life.
Time will prove.
How is metamodernism not another attempt at creating a metanarrative for control? Even if the justification is an intergral/progressive view of humanity and the need to take the next step forward (allegedly) for the greater good. I'm sure Communism sounded great in the 1850's. Not that Christianity didn't make the same meta step move to the Roman Empire.
I would say it’s an attempt to offer a vision of the present and future that honors truth, beauty & Goodness, unity in diversity, care for the biosphere & a world that works for all (justice) , life. It’s a vision. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven “. Add to the vision if you want, or reject any move toward a better future. It’s always your choice. In Judaism it’s called Tikkum Olam, take God’s hand and together create an ever more beautiful future.
@@RichardCosci Got it say no more. You'll understand if people chose not to follow you and The Anglo West down yet another proposed route to salvation.
@@RichardCoscihow would you know your making a move to a better future? Do you just feel it? You’re probably using a Christian framework for what you think is good anyway. All this is just trying to have Christianity without the Christ. Which is a road paved with good intentions, of course. But we know where that leads
Every generation of Christian has brought new clarity and new delusion. But there are too many centuries past for me want to even fight the kudzu back 500 years, let alone 2000 years.
57:48 is "seeing the same thing" the highest value? Is the goal to find the most agnostic method possible? Or is science much like the secular, a space where the religions/tribes can interact fruitfully without killing each other? And there is a very clear reason why the most 'neutral' space will default to a form of utilitarianism even though many people personally are very uncomfortable embracing utilitarianism wholesale- it's like democracy, the best worst form of government. Wisdom has to be embedded- this is something vervaeke keeps hammering home and why he hit some challenges talking to both Chad and Zevi, can we dis-embed and dis-embody wisdom
So good.
4:15 overlapping magisterium 👊
: ) 🍿
56:30 i’m not sure that science can actually do this as consistently and uniformly as you presume science has to control the propositions, the participation, the procedures, and largely the perspective (see Rupert Sheldrake and other ostracized scientists) “they’re not doing science.” Etc.
eg reproducibility problems.
Even actual scientists, public facing, are doing reputational Kabuki.
Added new Google Icon ... I am theologically Siamese if you please ;-)
I miss the orange w
@@mcmosav I had to protect the privacy of my cat, he isn't really Siamese.
Argh. 1:19:40 ish, On ‘Jesus didn’t even judge’ remark, Gotta keep the lightsaber out for this one. But that’s also part of the TLC.
I think G-d will judge after all enemies have been made Christ’s footstool.
How this judgement will happen is the debate.
I see judgement and mercy as two hands of a unified Person (G-d). Discipline is for the sons you love. I don’t believe in the myth of retributive, merely punitive violence.
I wonder if we exclude inspiration to specific biblical authors then it becomes “scientific” and excludes anything supernatural or metaphysical as a possible “cause” for Truth, Knowledge or Life. Then it becomes purely from man and no need for God or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit.
Or self-sacrifice may be immoral. It's an act of throwing away the most valuable thing in the universe--your life.
But what if you find your life in the live(s) of whom your "own life" is given? Not counting your own life as your own, but something to be given in love. Either through a red martyrdom of being murdered/killed or through a slow sacrificial life of "not insisting on your own way" or "not my will but your will" (1 Corinthians 13 type stuff)?
Brenden, I would love to hear/see a conversation with you and Chezi @chezispero3533 he is an Orthodox Jew in TLC, making great comments on this video : )
Seconded.
Thirded.
Fourthed lol
Yes