I hope that the critique around here of Tolle goes deeper than 'girly guy'. If that is the extent of evangelical analysis, we don't have a chance about making our case.

●Oh, I certainly agree with you from the perspective of providing an evangelical analysis of Tolle’s “theology.” I’ve tried to supply a little of this by mentioning what I believe are the main streams of his concoction: Gnosticism, Eastern mysticism and extreme individualism. However, from a sociological perspective, I think the “girly man” comment is right on point.

If we can set aside all of our fears about being insensitive to women’s issues, etc.; I would note the following.

In 1991 I first read Strauss and Howe’s book “Generations.” Without going into their complex theory about generational archetypes, I want to mention that they shocked me by predicting that the Baby Boom generation ultimately would not be known for the Sexual Revolution, student rebellion, Yuppies, or anything like that. They noted that long after all of these things are on the dustbin of history, the Baby Boom generation would be known for feminism.

Further, they noted that Baby Boom women will eventually transform American society from a patriarchal culture to a feminist culture. They did not say matriarchal which implies mothering. In short, they predicted that American sensibilities will become fairly anti-patriarchal strongly suppressing the traditional masculine virtues of delineation, hierarchy, right and wrong, command, etc (think of the 1969 moon mission and the “Right Stuff”). The more feminine virtues will publicly replace these including nurturance, inclusion, tolerance, egalitarianism, etc. (think of the multiculturalism).

Many others have noticed and commented on this remarkable transformation which is now moving forward at full steam.

Tolle, in my view, provides a nearly perfect personification of a gender-neutral religious guru that is not threatening in the least from a masculine perspective. His theology is the polar opposite of traditional patriarchal doctrine with its emphasis on doctrine, obedience, reward and punishment, public engagement, and truth. His is a navel-gazing, all-roads-lead-to-heaven (without a real heaven and hell), highly personalized and nurturing religion. He is the “perfect storm” for contemporary American public sensibilities which are sentimental in the extreme. They are so sentimental that to even mention what I have runs the risk of public censure for being “insenitive.”

So in the simplest terms, this is about Oprah being a woman.

●No.

●Agreed!

Ron wrote:

I can't make sense of this sentence…First, are nurturance, inclusion, etc the feminine virtues that will replace the patriarchial virtues? This isn't clear to me….Second, what is wrong with nurturance? I think I understand the other three in the list - but I don't get part about nurturance? The Bible clearly talks about nurturance. In fact, St. Paul actually uses feminine language to discuss his ministry among the Thessalonians:

●First, I am happy to see that there are still some people that can see that Paul was not a misogynist and suppressor of women.

●I am referring to an archetypical shift. Perhaps this quote from the article The Feminization of American Culture, How Modern Chemicals May be Changing Human Biology by Leonard Sax, M.D. might be helpful:

A number of authors have recognized the increasing feminization of American society. With few exceptions, most of those acknowledging this process have welcomed it.17 As Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff wrote in their 1985 book The Feminization of America, "The feminizing influence is moving [American society] away from many archaic ways of thinking and behaving, toward the promise of a saner and more humanistic future.... Feminine culture, with its commitment to creating and protecting life, is our best and brightest hope for overcoming the destructive, life-threatening forces of the nuclear age."18

●Both Sax and feminist commentators agree that in the last 50 years the approved cultural archetype has shifted dramatically from the classic patriarchical male virtues of hierarchy, merit, responsibility, courage, toughness, etc. to more of a feminist set of virtues (considered “humanistic”—meaning male virtues are de-humanizing) such as nurturance, inclusion, compassion, etc. Sax, of course, disagrees with the feminists as to the value of this shift. My point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with nurturance, inclusion, and compassion. They are clearly valued in Christianity. However, the question to consider is in regard to why are the classic male virtues being stigmatized as a public or cultural archetype?
●Actually, Sax notes that here has been a reversal of archetypical roles. He puts it this way as seen from the perspective of the entertainment media: “In today's cinema, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, all the leading women are strong and all the leading men are good-looking.” I think he has a point. It is hard to miss this in many contemporary movies. Contrast the women in Laura Croft, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, G.I. Jane and Kill Bill, with the women in most 50’s westerns. Again, I am speaking of archetypes.

Your problem with Oprah is the same problem you have with anyone who brings meaning to their own life and others without using your formula.

●Some formulations are poisonous. The problem is in regard to veracity. I disagree with your belief that all religious formulations are spiritually beneficial.

Christianity is not defined by doctrine, or identified as a religion having a creed requiring assent to some very particular statements of truth. Many who call themselves Christians have no idea what those truths may be, (much less what a doctrine is), - just that it is "good" to have people believing that they are Christian. (Especially during election years.) Such is the case perhaps with Oprah.

●You bring up an interesting point that my wife makes. She is a news “junkie” and a full-blown political conservative (full disclosure). She notes that there is a more-than-coincidental connection between the these elements: A) the concern of political progressives about the voting patterns of conservative Christians; B) Oprah’s recent evangelistic efforts; and C) the effect of her efforts on those Christians who are not strongly grounded in solid doctrine.
●If you will take the time to watch some of the Eckert Tolle clips on You Tube, you will notice his consistent denigration of the use of the “mind.” The last thing this brand of “religion” wants is people thinking critically.

I simply do not see any of the shift you describe.

●That’s fine, I and hundreds of other commentators including leading feminists do see the shift.

Now most leading male roles are parodies of how men should act as father figures with no worthwhile advice and messing things up every turn until the mother comes in and fixes everything. Interestingly nearly the exact opposite of I love Lucy.

●Any one who cannot see this has his head in more than sand.

●Below are portions of an article summarizing the research conducted on the changing role of the sitcom dad from the 1950s to the present. The article is from January of 2008

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/550323/a_look_at_the_changing_role_of_the.html?page=2

A Look at the Changing Role of the Sitcom Dad

The Sitcom Fathers of The Past (Before 1970's)
In television before the 1970's, the sitcom father was presented as wise. The entire family sought him out to ask him advice and he was the family problem solver. The sitcom father of the past was wise and intelligent. He was revered and honored by the whole family. He was respected. There were very few jokes poking fun at the sitcom father of the past. Usually, he was the one cracking jokes about other family members. Some examples of these shows with wise sitcom fathers of the past are, "Happy Days", "Leave It to Beaver", "I Love Lucy", "Father Knows Best" etc (Scharrer).

The Sitcom Fathers of the Present (1970's to Today)
The sitcom fathers of today are often presented as the butt of jokes. They are made fun of by the family. They are often treated like one of the children and the wife has to look after them, even though they are adults (Scharrer). The rest of the family does not seek them out for advice; instead they seek out the mother. The sitcom father is sometimes portrayed as so incompetent that he can't even complete simple household chores or look after the children. Some examples of these sitcom fathers are "Rodney", "Everybody Loves Raymond", "The Simpson", "Yes Dear, etc."

Causes of the Change
The gender of the executive producer of the show and the writers has a great deal to do with how the characters of the show are played out (Skill)(Olsen). In one study that I came across in my research, they said that shows that the gender of the producer directly relates to the way the sitcom father is portrayed (Douglas). Perhaps since more women are involved in higher positions in the television, the shows are portraying women in powerful roles. Or perhaps men producers and writers are trying to portray fathers as silly and attract women viewers (Queenan).

My research has shown that the class of the father in the television show directly relates to the way the father is portrayed. I found some studies that examined class among a variety of sitcom shows during the 1980's (Frazer). The study found that, the lower the fathers' class and job, the more foolish he is portrayed.

Another reason for the way the fathers are portrayed in the show could be because of the shift in society. Is it really fair to compare shows from the 1950's, 1960's and so on to the shows of today? The shows that were created back then were created in a time when men and women were not as equal. Perhaps today's shows are trying to distribute the power to women. The shows with foolish men could be targeted towards women.

●For further reference see the following.

From wise to foolish: The portrayal of the sitcom father, 1950s-1990s, Erica Scharrer. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Washington: Winter 2001.Vol.45, Iss. 1; pg. 23, 18 pgs

●No. You are offering opinion, we are not. Read this.

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, 2001, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal & Kingston, 370 pages, ISBN 0-7735-2272-7.

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young argue that since the 1990s men have been portrayed in popular culture as evil, inadequate, or honorary women, from Designing Women, Home Improvement, Oprah, and Cape Fear to Hallmark cards, comic strips, and the New York Times columns of Anna Quindlen. The first of a three-part series, Spreading Misandry offers an impressive critique of popular culture to identify a phenomenon that is just now being recognized as a serious cultural problem - misandry, the sexist counterpart of misogyny.

From the book review by Graeme Hamilton © 2001 National Post Commentary ©2001 Bert H. Hoff:

Dr. Nathanson, who has been working with Dr. Young on the project for 15 years, said misandry -- the hatred of men -- is unexplored academic terrain.

Dr. Katherine Young, a professor of religious studies at McGill, said her research has attracted some hostility from "ideological feminists" who believe women are superior to men.

"As we wrote it, we realized it's going against the grain, and therefore it's going to be controversial," she said.

She added that being a tenured professor made it easier for her to take on the controversial topic without fear of harm to her career.

Some may be tempted to dismiss the book as another example of academics overly obsessed with popular culture. Its index is peppered with such entries as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gloria Gaynor, Murphy Brown, Sex and the City and The Vagina Monologues. One title Misandryd the Misandric Week on Television, analyzes a week of TV Guide listings for examples of dastardly men.

The book is the first of three volumes about misandry the pair will publish with McGill-Queen's. (Co-author) Dr. Katherine K. Young said the issue needs to be explored because it is exacting a social toll.

Fed a popular-culture diet of men who are either hapless or downright evil, boys and young men are feeling more alienated, she said. "What group wants to live with constant negative stereotyping?"

Even more serious is the gulf such portrayals create between the sexes. "What happens to society when the prevailing world view is dualistic, with one group seen as good and the other as evil?" she asked. In their book, the authors warn such polarization could provoke a backlash.

"If men are told over and over again that they are not only brutal subhumans in general but also hostile to women in particular, they are likely to say, 'So be it ...' What goes around, according to the old saying, comes around," they write.

Published: April 14, 2008
Bashing Fathers and Husbands Isn't the Right Way for Marketers to Sell Products

By Glenn Sacks and Richard Smaglick, Advertising Age

The way the advertising industry portrays men has drawn increasing scrutiny in both the trade press and the mainstream media. Defenders of the status quo -- in which men are depicted as irresponsible fathers and lazy, foolish husbands -- are starting to feel outnumbered. It's an understandable feeling…The evidence is clear: "Man as idiot" isn't going over very well these days…Defenders of the advertising status quo generally put forth the following arguments: Males are "privileged" and "it's men's turn," so it's OK to portray them this way, and that men simply don't care how they're portrayed. Both of these arguments are highly questionable…While the advertising industry's negative depiction of fathers certainly isn't the cause of fatherlessness, it is part of the problem. In a TV culture like ours, the fact that the only fathers one can see on TV are buffoonish (at best) does influence young people's perceptions of fathers…For young men, it makes it less likely they'll aspire to be fathers, see their own value as fathers or, as Mr. Pitts explains, want to do the "hard but crucial work of being Dad." For young women, it means they'll be more likely to be misled into thinking that their children's fathers aren't important, that divorce or separation from them is no big deal, or that they should, as is the increasing trend, simply dispense with dad altogether and have children on their own…According to Leo Burnett Worldwide's 2005 "Man Study," four out of five men believe media portrayals of men are inaccurate. The study found that men care more about the way they are viewed than was generally believed…When Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel did a feature on "men-as-idiots" advertising in 2004, she says she was "astounded" at the amount of mail she received, almost all of it critical of the way men are portrayed in ads. In a Washington Times article in January, advertising-industry journalist Todd Wasserman described getting a similar reaction to a recent article he wrote on anti-male ads…This sentiment was reflected in the popularity of the highly publicized campaigns we've launched against advertising that is hostile to males. Several thousand protesters participated in both our 2004 campaign against Verizon's anti-father ad "Homework" and our 2007 campaign against Arnold Worldwide.

I dare say where men are shown in movies and television more often in a less than flattering light.

●Finally something approaching commonsense.

You wrote: Now you morph this topic to associate good examples in Obama and and one of the most popular celebrities on television as being the instigators in feminizing America.

●Wrong.

The article I quoted above from Associated Content was a summation of all of the research on the changing media role of “sitcom fathers.” It identified three primary reasons why sitcom fathers have gone from being wise sages to ridiculed buffoons. Those reasons are:

1. The predominance of contemporary female producers and writers.
2. The portrayal of sitcom fathers as those in the economic lower class.
3. The shift of the larger culture so that now men are portrayed as less powerful which appeals to a targeted audience of women.

It has been assumed by media insiders that men are not offended or upset with the way they are portrayed on television, and therefore, as a way to appeal to a mass audience of women, they have felt free to denigrate men. However, as the article from Advertising Age demonstrated, research is now showing that men actually resent the way they are presented in the media and, therefore, advertisers are beginning to rethink their approach. Additionally, advertisers are beginning to notice what the McGill University researchers have discovered. The presentation of men as evil or as buffoons has a deleterious effect on society.

My point being don't talk down about things you haven't read, experienced or understood. Maybe we should all just let each other believe whatever it is we want to. Judgement is the anti-thesis of what Jesus really represents anyway. Why don't Christians get that???

●Actually, SutraPants, I have experienced and read a whole lot of the stuff you are talking about. I spent years on a personal quest to explore many different religions, including New Age teaching and its leaders. What I discovered is that anything that was of lasting value in these things was actually a facsimile of the genuine article which could be found in Christianity.

You wrote: Imagine God as a completely neutral presence who creates for you, and each of us individually, the reality we believe.

●Timbo and Ron have already commented on this. I would like to expand on Timbo’s point. If God is simply an unconscious spiritual amplifier that takes our thoughts and transforms them into physical reality, then this would be true as much for Eckert Tolle as for Adolf Hitler. Consequently God is responsible for the Nazi gas chambers; because without God’s amplification Hitler’s evil empire could not have come into existence. Therefore, your God is ultimately responsible for all evil and misery the world.

You don’t like the Christian God because He deems certain things as unjust and wrong (i.e. murder, rape, genocide, etc.); however, Tolle’s God is infinitely more evil.

By the way, Jesus was, indeed, very judgmental. He clearly indicated that unjust and evil acts are wrong. Hitler’s acts, therefore, were evil while Mother Teresa’s were good. In Tolle’s system, his God created for Hitler his evil empire. I’ll take Jesus over Tolle’s deity any day.

One comment and you get this. You must be thinking WOW, if tolerance is a virtue then virtuous these people are not. You would be on point. Personally, I can see where you can come to believe what you do. You are a person who does not feel a need to JOIN. That speaks well for you, meaning your mind is open. My best to you.

●I was playing a little game with myself imagining what you would write to SutrPants. You did not disappoint me. At light speed you move to name-calling and smear tactics. Ah, Mormonism, what a fine religion.

Why not listen to folks who have left the Christian faith, or even those who have left your particular color of Christian faith? In not listening but instead attacking, you reveal a fear.

●Gecko, please count the number of implied or direct negative statements about the reader in the following…

If you are truly interested in hard-edged things such as “truth,” then perhaps you…

There are some interesting essays in "You are Being Lied to (http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-

Disinformation/dp/0966410076) about jesus and religion….
it took me years to extricate myself from the willful ignorance that religion instills…

It's hard to imagine that God as you know it may not be the judemental, control-freak that Christians believe….

it's no more far-fetched that Jesus riding in on clouds of white to save us all from the antichrist, don't you think?...

My point being don't talk down about things you haven't read, experienced or understood…

Maybe we should all just let each other believe whatever it is we want to…
Judgement is the anti-thesis of what Jesus really represents anyway. Why don't Christians get that???

●Now count the number of implied or direct negative statements about the reader in the following…

I have experienced and read a whole lot of the stuff you are talking about. I spent years on a personal quest to explore many different religions,…

If God is simply an unconscious spiritual amplifier that takes our thoughts and transforms them into physical reality, then this would be true as much for Eckert Tolle as for Adolf Hitler. Consequently God is responsible for the Nazi gas chambers; because without God’s amplification Hitler’s evil empire could not have come into existence…

●I found this to be so amazingly unsophisticated that I was stunned. Dinesh took some time this morning to give the historical background to Augustine’s (and the Christian) insight that time and space came into existence as properties of the universe—a notion that was both ridiculed and misunderstood until the mid-20th century.

You wrote: The last bit where he explained that the "new Atheists" are angry because of (you) evangelicals who have been changing the rules in the last 7 years was revealing: it confirmed D'Souza's point that atheists don't make their decision as a cold-blooded exercise in weighing the evidence.

●Wow, when my wife and I asked Dinesh about this on the way to his hotel, even he couldn’t figure out what Shermer meant by the “last 7 years.” Shermer is actually pretty politically conservative. My wife suggested Shermer was pandering to his “base” (secularists who are usually also political “progressives”).

You wrote: The argument that the great Atheist mass murderers were really religious because, you know, "Hitler was a Catholic" reveals how much of he indulges in the uncritical thinking that explains "Why people believe weird things"...because they want to balderdash. i.e., Hitler was a Catholic in the same way that Shermer is a Christian; Hitler also quoted extensively from major atheist thinkers like Schopenhauer and Neitszche, not from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

●Dinesh went into some detail on this today. He noted that the latest secularist gambit is to try to disconnect or “cut away” the actual historical connection between atheism and the mass genocides of the 20th century. He stated that Dawkins first floated this nonsense and he also noted, tongue in cheek, that this proves that “biologists shouldn’t be allowed out of the lab.” He offered the example of the direct connection between overt atheism and the Communist Manifesto.

You wrote: On the other hand, I was amazed that D'Souza was able to pull off "Pascal's Argument." Usually that falls flat with the "how do know you have the right God" question.

●I loved this moment of the debate.

●In private Dinesh expressed that he was surprised by Shermer’s strong appeal to the “suffering” argument. Usually the New Atheists like to avoid it because it can end up emphasizing that atheism has absolutely nothing to say to grieving parents other than “tough luck.” Today Dinesh took the time to explain what a world would look like if God rushed in and replaced very amputated limb. He was showing our audience that “the best of all worlds” includes volition and the reality of suffering.

●This is like the old self-incriminating question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
●You probably didn’t notice this but absolutely no one failed to listen to SP and absolutely no one attacked him/her. Therefore, your question is meaningless.

Why don't you put up a "no trespassing sign", or "Danger - Junkyard dogs on grounds"?

If you had hoped that you would gain a listening ear, this ain't the place.

Anybody who is different they have a habit of thoughtlessly insulting personally.

You must be thinking WOW, if tolerance is a virtue then virtuous these people are not.

In not listening but instead attacking,

Shouting someone down here reveals that fear and anxiety.

Undisciplined negative thinking should not be a direct consequence of Christ's peace.

You must be aware that this incessant stream of mental noise is a veil that distorts perceptions of reality, pollutes self with negativity, and drains self of vitality.

●Now, I would like you to guess who wrote these statements. You get three guesses.

●Reader Alert: please notice how Gecko ignores my questions.

That pretty much seems to blow the Atheist argument that Atheism is as moral as Christianity out of the water. The mindset that Shermer revealed in his offhand comment about "it's all about meeee!!!" is the connection between atheism and mass murder.

●Even if I was not a Christian, as an American citizen I would be very, very nervous about the atheist’s argument that we can be moral without theism. There is a fundamental document that guides the American concept of self-government that was born out of monarchical despotism. As you know, it reads as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

●Perhaps Shermer did not notice that this document is stating that each and every individual is endowed with unalienable rights by the Creator. This could just as easily be ridiculed as focused on meeeeee! Certainly, from his perspective, why would God be waiting around 13.9 billion years to endow Meeeee with unalienable rights such as life and liberty?

●Of course, from a Thomist perspective Shermer simply doesn’t understand what it means to posit an infinite simple Being. This is, as Dinesh pointed out, conjuring-up a God that is only an extension of oneself. Hmmm…I wonder if that is Meee-ism?

It is evident that D'Souza however, has thought through the best arguments from the other side and was prepared for every attack including a couple of relatively hostile questions from the audience. His humor and grace while making unambiguous points spontaneously was inspiring. He is quite skillful.

●In a private conversation, one of our other learned participants offered his assessment of D’Souza. He mentioned that there are other very effective debaters who are, perhaps, more skilled at the mechanics of debate. However, there are very few Christians who are as widely read as D’Souza and who can bring so many different perspectives to bear on any given issue. He noted that D’Souza is a virtual “machine” in his ability to absorb information and use it spontaneously.
●I noted that a couple of the questioners complained about D’Souza’s use of metaphors. I found this amusing. Actually, what he did was skillfully use examples and metaphors to illustrate abstract ideas. This is one of his strengths. Aquinas also brilliantly used simple examples and metaphors.

The second kind of false mysticism arrives at special supernatural knowledge by means other than those normally ordained by God (The contours of the Virgin Mary on the face of a soda cracker is a special gift from God. Or, God dispenses the priest of all believers by virtue of being born and being a believer).

1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;