Religious Degree Discussions

Not to worry Bill................I am here

North

 

Thanks for clarifying, Bill.

 

Laissez faire in the off-topic slot

I voted 'no' in the poll because I took 'off-topic' to mean what it says and therefore any topic not directly DL was OK. If you start sub-dividing off-topic into separate topics we would have to have one for politics, the histories of the world and jokes or banter and so on.

I am not particularly interested in religion or theology (it has only a slightly higher relevance for me than astrology), which is why the recent discussion on LDS took me sometime to realise what LDS meant (I have completey missed the points about 'horse manure') but I occasionally dip into the debates and find something interesting. That is the purpose, I presume, of an 'off-topic' slot.

If you don't want to read about it, you may pass over to the next topic, or miss 'off-topic' altogether.

 

No, it's not.

Nonetheless, I have decided to be more charitable and less critical of Bill Grover and Uncle Janko, our biggest offenders, because as I read this thread, I began to realize that they do not have a life.

To wit, as of the time I write this post:

Tony Pina, who registered in 10/01, has posted 206 times. Me again, who registered in 8/01, has written 724 posts. Steven King, who registered in 2/01, has written 275 posts. Tom Nixon, here since 1/01, has posted 446 times. Even I, having registered in 2/02, have only posted 397 times.

On the other hand, Bill Grover, who registered in 3/02 and has been on the board less than a year, has posted 1,142 times. And Uncle Janko, a relative newbie here since 8/02, has posted 603 times in only five months.

Clearly, if posting frequency is an indication, this is the only social outlet that Bill and Janko have. The rest of us apparently have more fulfilled lives, which is why we do not feel the need to spend our time engaging in such theological mutual masturbation on the board.

I also apologize for asking on that other thread, "Anyone wanna fuck?" Clearly, if anyone needs to engage in some mutual sexual expression, it's Bill and Janko. It might lead them to post less dribble.

Wait a second . . . Damn, I can't resist . . .

Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!

 

Of course, I was responding to Tony's question. We didn't ask your permission first, sorry.

As a mostly retired person I have more time to post. As one infatuated with theological study I talk about this rather than making the purpose of my posting to shock others by ejaculating language offensive to some all over the forum . Sure I have a life. As evidence I don't go around recording how many posts people make.

Again, Levicoff, if such theological discussions is boring to you, simply move on.

But more unlikely you are just petulant because you understand so little that is said on the subject of theology since your "phD in Religion" (Bwa HA Ha) has failed to prepare you to grasp even an upper division discussion on the subject.

 

Professor Kennedy:

Thanks for the post. Adults ought to be able to do what you suggest. Business schools are not central to my current academic or professional concerns. I usually read the threads relating to business schools because one never knows where really useful information might be found, independently of one's own degree (?) of involvement in the topic. Why not take advantage of the chance to learn about someone else's interests and programmes? It could lead to rethinking one's own interests and intentions, to a wider fund of information and a deeper well of empathy for other learners, and to a more intelligent and incisive participation in civil discourse.

Or not.

Best wishes, J.

 

I certainly agree with that. It's one of the main reasons why I don't want discussion of religious degree programs excluded from the main forum.

Personally, I have tremendous difficulty imagining myself ever enrolling in a fundamentalist/evangelical Protestant program of the sort that seems so popular on Degreeinfo. But I do get pleasure and edification out of reading the rest of your posts about these programs. It certainly puts the kind of things that interest me into a wider context. I learn about everything from the different religious accreditors to educational standards for ordination in various denominations.

But problems arise when this kind of discussion is buried underneath and within extremely dense tech-talk whose intended audience really isn't the wider Degreeinfo community at all. The signal to noise ratio in those threads drops right off a cliff.

That's why I suggest that on-topic discussion of DL programs in religion remain on the main forum, but as much as possible of the off-topic "banter", along with the 'monogenes' and the Jacobus Arminius move over here to 'off-topic'.

That way everyone is happy. The theologians and their admirers can penetrate straight to the heart of the triune Godhead and hopefully achieve whatever kind apotheosis that they seek, and the rest of Degreeinfo can continue on discussing DL degree programs.

One serious problem with moving all discussion about religious degree programs to a separate forum is that, frankly, I don't think that many people here have very much feeling for the breadth and scope of what 'religion' includes. There are non-Christian religions. (Really, it's true!) There are actually Christians who aren't evangelicals. There are historical, sociological, anthropological, phenomenological, philosopical, literary and comparative approaches to religion that might bear little resemblance to Degreeinfo's required Biblical scriptural approach. There are a few DL programs of interest to a tiny handful of us (to me at least) that include everything from the University of Sunderland's Buddhist Studies MA to the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology's Ph.D.

If that stuff were shoved into a new religious forum that is totally dominated by one particular approach to one particular religion, it would either be completely ignored or it would be eaten alive.

 

Although others have also mentioned that the discussion of distance learning business programs are laden with jargon, perhaps that is of necessity. In fact, amlost every discipline has its own nomenclature, and the course titles alone of many degree programs may be incompressible to those unfamiliar with it. The same is true with religious and theological degrees as it with business degrees. That, however, is not the point.

The point is that you do not find discussion of business subject matter permeating threads that do not pertain to business degrees, as we do with religious and theological subject matter. In fact, we rarely see any discussion of business topics unless it is directly related to a distance learning degree program or a specific course. In contrast, religious and theological discussions have insinuated themselves into many unrelated threads on this board, regardless of topic of the thread, or whether it was in the Off-topic Discussions Forum or not. Moreover, much of the religious/theological discussion has absolutely nothing to do with distance learning, and that is the problem. We would not be having this discussion if the discussions of religious/theological subject matter had confined themselves to threads clearly labeled as such, or had appeared only in the Off-topic Discussions Forum.

I am in favor of a separate forum for Religious/Theological Degree Programs (and not just a separate off-topic forum for religious/theological discussion, a separate degree program forum just like the one for IT) for several reasons.

First, the legitimate programs themselves (including such things as degree titles, required credit hours, and even acceptable research methodologies) are sufficiently different from other disciplines. (And if IT merits a separate forum, which in my opinion it does not, then religious/theological degree programs even more so.)

Second, religious/theological degree programs have their own accreditors and standards that differ from secular degrees, and the criteria for distinguishing the legitimate schools from the illegitimate are different.

Third, Religion/Theology has its own flavor of degree mills, and the religious exemption statutes in many states pose a unique legal situation.

Fourth, the relative utility of the degrees differ significantly from secular degrees.

And the last, and perhaps most important reason, I am in favor of a separate forum for Religious/Theological Degree programs, is that any discussion of Religious/Theological Degree programs will undoubtedly include a significant amount religious/theological discussion unrelated to distance learning degree programs. In other words, I do not believe that many of those involved in discussing religious/theological degrees will be able to limit their comments solely to distance learning issues or specific aspects of a degree program. By having these discussions concentrated in a single forum (rather than having them diffused throughout the entire board) the ratio between the discussions of distance learning religious/theological degree programs to religious/theological (although Christian is a far better term) subject matter to inane banter will become much clearer.

 

Bill Dayson:
The distinction you make is worthwhile. Those of us who are not fundamentalists are indeed interested in things like the Sunderland program as well as the usual run of generic evangelical stuff. When I have gone into detail on so-called technical stuff, it has been in response to questions OR in response to church-history-based claims relating to some sort of DL which appeared to me to be false. In the future I will try to answer questions like that (if any) by referring the questioner to the off-topic forum.

Will this make it harder to follow? Probably, but the alternative is the endless re-quoting of previously posted material. Most enjoy quoting over and over again and interspersing replies with quotes. I don't like doing that, myself, so I will take my chances with forum-switching.

Not that you, Bill, have done this--or ever would--but I think it's fair to note, as someone who actually reads the whole site and not just one narrow field, that it is largely the "religious" posters who are the targets of obscene and abusive posts. I don't see that in other areas of discussion, nor do I see the "religious" posters replying in kind to that sort of thing.

Best wishes, J.

 

Okay, how about the "Baptised, sanctified, and simonized Fundamentalists hung up with irrelevant discussionf o Greek exegesis and earning mickey-mouse degrees from ACCS while engaging in occasional Mormon bashing" forum?

Sometimes I just crack myself up. (Okay, no comments from the peanut gallery...)

 

Steve,

Whose been bashing the Mormon? I haven't felt a thing. They must be using a foam rubber sledge hammer!


Tony Piña, the Unbashed Mormon

B.A. Brigham Young U.
M.Ed. Brigham Young U.
Ph.D. studies/internships Arizona State U.
Ed.D. candidate La Sierra U. (currently wading through dissertation)

 

I've got just a few comments on this topic. First, I'd say that 34 responses to the poll (at the time of this writing) means almost nothing compared to the fact that hundreds of members (myself included) are so disinterested that they won't even cast a vote. This is a non-issue in the eyes of most members. Secondly, I'd like to say that I agree with Gus' statement above. I can't count the number of times I've been reading along a thread only to have it comandeered by our theological brethren who, in turn, morph it into some tragic mutation of the thread title. I don't care if you use ancient Greek, Latin, Pig-Latin, or if you all want to speak in tongues. I don't care IF you post or WHERE you post your theological discussions. All I ask is that you STOPSTOPSTOP hijacking threads.
***Special note to Bill Grover: Bill, as someone whose primary academic interest is Philosophy, I can well appreciate the perspective of someone caught up in the reverie of an arcane or esoteric issue. Please allow me to pass on something that I've learned over the years. NO ONE CARES!!! That may be tragic but it is reality.
Jack

 

...........................

Jack,

OK, since you're a fellow esoteric I'll try to remember to do that.

 

As Aeschines (or was it Isaeus?) used to say: mebbe so, mebbe no.

 

I am not sure I agree - some really do care...but don't have the time to always respond to every nuance, in every thread, that might produce even the slightest interest.

I envy Bill Grover's passion with which he has posted to various topics.

Steve Levicoff is also passionate - I can attest to his helpfulness and religious insights in personal emails.

Let's not be so quick to judgment - particularly "we" who claim to know The Way.

Steven King

 

chew the cud

moo