Religious Degree Discussions

Is a religious room going to be opened at this website so that all the religious discussions can be funneled there?

 

Whoa, what a lopsided poll!!! It looks like opinions are very strong on this one!!!

 

I was surprised to see how many votes there were, despite a lack of detailed responses. And, indeed, how lopsided they are.

I'm certainly on the side of a separate forum, if only to clean up the general forums.

Lest people think, because of my recent opinions on this, that I am hostile to religion or religious discussion, I'd remind them that both of my grad degrees are in religion (M.A. Theology and Law, Ph.D. Religion and Law). I can thrust and parry with the best of them. However, the turn that many of the discussions end up taking delves into the realm of esoteric horse manure. In Latin, no less. Our evangelical colleagues seem to forget that this is essentially a distance education forum, not a forum to debate Arminius versus Calvin ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Hell, even the IT crowd manages to keep their focus on IT programs, not the intricate aspects of C+ syntax. Thus, when the alleged pastoral crowd engages in theological debate, they end up coming off as whackos. Why? Simply because they're doing it here.

I can certainly understand at this point why John B. dropped the religion chapter from his book - because of a very vocal minority who stuck their Bibles up their rear ends and ended up regurgitating more than anyone else in the crowd.

 

Actually I went the other direction. I'm surprised how few votes there were. Only 16 so far (at 4:00 p.m. PST). However, the percentages are certainly very lopsided. Sounds to me like it is something that the powers that be should consider.


Tom Nixon

 

It's impossible for me to form an opinion on this "proposal" until somebody can explain precisely what it is that's being proposed.

Here the suggestion is that the new forum be for the discussion of religious degree programs. I strongly and vehemently oppose that idea.

Nobody picked up on the fact that this is a completely different proposal. Now the suggestion is to move "religious discussions" to the new forum.

Presumably the idea here is to get all the discussion of denominational history, scripture, Greek grammar and Jacobus Arminius off the DL forum.

If the proposal is to create a new forum for *off-topic discussion* of religion itself (as opposed to on-topic discussion of *DL programs* in religion), I could support it, I guess.

A question: What's wrong with using the 'off-topic' forum that we already have? Why is a new forum needed?

 

I understand why John dropped that chapter of his book.

 

I voted for no separate religious education forum. Although sometimes the theology gets a little too deep, I generally find it interesting even though I haven't been to church lately. Thankfully no-one has died recently.

 

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

Dennis

I am usually the culprit in this. Sorry.

I do get excited , like a kid, over some papers or chapters I am working on, things I am discovering, so it takes next to no encouragement from North or Unk or whomever to get me going. Most of my research is in the area of the relationship between the (from my own perspective) trinal Persons. Both programs provide opportunity to study this area.

This UZ thesis and the ACCS studies ,which are cognate to that, well, they are really the main thing in my life now. At my age these programs possibly will be my last accomplishment. I know most topics here are motivated by questions like what schools to study at whereas these types of posts from me are spurred by my joy over my study. I hope everyone enjoys his/her programs as much as I do. Sometimes I overflow ,and even Levicoff's insults such as comparing my topics (eg the contrasting Chalcedonian and Athanasian views on the relationship of the dual natures in Christ) with horse manure are impotent to restrain this. In fact I'm becoming bullet proof, I think.

But I know this is a DL board , not a theological one , so I will try to limit the expressions of my enthusiam here to my friends.

I'm glad that you sometimes find such discussion interesting.

 

Ag, shame. Without thrusting, parrying, or shoving anything up anywhere, some of us, even some of us lowly peasants without the doctorate, consider a certain amount of Latin to be part of the normal equipment of a person well-educated in the humanities.
Some of us would prefer to see theological discussion, as opposed to discussion of religious DL, largely confined to the off-topic forum.
However, nobody has no basis for saying that theological discussion makes anyone a "whacko" "for saying it here" when the nobody in question considers "here" an appropriate place to invite persons to f***.
Perhaps such invitations should be confined to the MIGS forum.

 

Bill,
As I have attested in private emails...I am very interested. Why can't we let the democratic nature of this forum thrive...if someone is not interested they should move on.

Kindly,
Steven King

 

"Why can't we let the democratic nature of this forum thrive...if someone is not interested they should move on. "

I agree. Isn't this why we already have thread titles, so that people can avoid the topics they have no interest in? Adding separate forums makes the board unwieldy. When I want to check activity here, I have to look at several forums.

I would like to see degreeinfo.com use only two forums: "distance learning discussion" and "off-topic discussion".

Of course, I would also like the moderators to rein in Steve Levicoff when he propositions the board for sex, but that hasn't happened either.

 

I think that if people are going to use technical vocabulary or foreign languages that they know a significant proportion of Degreeinfo readers won't understand, they should at least have the courtesy to give the rest of the group some idea what they mean. If they don't, they are not so subtly telling all those outside the charmed circle that their participation is not welcome.

Courtesy and consideration can only be demanded when they are given. A particular group can't opt out but then turn right around and try to enforce their own standards on everyone else.

 

In the past, when I have not understood technical terms on threads about business or computer (sic) degrees, I have asked what they meant. I didn't feel myself excluded because people proficient in a field used the vocabulary appropriate to the discussion of their field. I also got helpful answers when I asked. Experts are not obligated to tailor their language to my ignorant limitations; civil answers to any question I care to ask are the only thing I would ask--and have received--of them.

Funny how "imposing standards" is trotted out only if a "religious" person dislikes something. I have never suggested that anybody be censored. Unlike some religious posters, I don't care about profanity in this context. It just seems queer, though, for people who don't give a flying **** about language which is designed to offend, to turn around and get prissy about opaque disquisitions on theological arcana.

Suum cuique, as they say.

 

Personally, I enjoy the variety available on Degreeinfo and--within certain limits of good taste--I oppose the censoring of topics. I have learned much from the good folks at Degreeinfo, both DL and non-DL related.

The fact that we have an off-topic section say to me that it is OK to post "Jokes, banter, comments, etc. that are either not related or very peripherally related to the general discussions of DL."

I'll use the recent thread directed to me "HEY TONY Re: LDS beliefs" as an example. It was the product of other posting directly related to DL:

1. Someone mentions Walter Martin, the well-known "cult apologist" within the context of a DL post.

2. I chime in that many topics covered in Degreeinfo threads pertain directly to Martin:

--Martin's doctorate came from California Western University (AKA California Coast University) CCU is a popular institution of discussion on Degreeinfo.

--Martin claimed that his unaccredited CWU degree was, in fact accredited.

--Martin clamed that his two unaccredited undergrad degrees from Shelton College were, in fact, accredited.

--As Steve Levicoff has observed, Martin claimed that his CWU degree was in an area that the school was not licensed to offer.

--Martin's CWU dissertation was actually a re-write of an anti-Jehovah's Witness book that he had written many years earlier.

--Martin claimed degrees from schools that he had attended without completing a degree program.

--Martin listed his high school diploma as a "degree"

For the most part, these were analogous to topics featured regularly on Degreeinfo threads, especially those related to the topic of "timebombs".

I then made the observation that his apologetic work against my church was of the same quality and level of honesty as his academic career. I was later solicited to answer some questions about my LDS faith on the Off Topic Forum. Seeing this as a chance to participate in some asynchronous distance education, I welcomed the invitation and have had the opotunity both to teach and to learn.

This, my friends and colleagues, is why I treasure Degreeinfo.

Whether or not we have a separate forum for religion degrees or religion topics is not that important to me. To stifle the discussion altogether would be saddening to me. Heck, I actually enjoy the Calvinist vs. Arminian discussions and the attempts to reconcile the varying views of the Godhead. Certain Protestants have been telling me for years that these issues have been completely resolved and agreed upon and that they exclude the possibility of the Later-day Saint version. It's nice to have evidence that they were wrong.

Tony Piña
(whose degrees are in Spanish, Ed Psych and Ed Leadership/Technology, not religion)

 

=========
Tony:
I need to make a disclaimer. I hope nothing I said was taken to mean that in my *personal*opinion there is a possibility that the LDS view on the God head is correct. That certainly was not my intent.

North and I discussed Grudem who believes that the Son is eternally relationally --not essentially--subordinate to the Father. I think any eternal condition even if only relational has ontological effects , but I understand that North does not. I think role subordination limits the divine attributes of the Son and as attributes inhere in essence that would deny the Son's essential equality, but Grudem denies this. His argument is that the terms "Father"/ "Son" imply that the Father is greater in rank (not essence) ,and he says as well that the Son's incarnational subjection as indicated in Philippians 2:6 also evinces this. The view is that a divine Person must act temporally as the distinctives of that hypostasis determines. But this view gives too little consequence to the fulness of Christ's human nature, I think. So the earthly, subject Jesus, these ,[as also Dahms and Shedd}, say merely is acting out the conditions of His eternal subordination. I reject this view. I also reject the monarchianism of such as Tertullian, Novatian, and Origen which led to the tenets in the Nicene/Chalcedonian and Westminster expressions on eternal begetting.

But this is a long way from denying the ontological equality of the three divine Persons which equality the creeds by referencing begetting and proceeding supposed they maintain, howbeit only by requiring the monarchianism with the Father as the source of the Trinirty.

Again, welcome back,

 

Bill,

No, I do not expect you to accept the LDS doctrine of the Godhead. My point is that Christians have been debating this topic since the days of Justin Martyr and the issue still does not seem to be resolved (the ecumenical councils notwithstanding). I see plenty of Biblical support for my own position and precious little for either a Nicaean, Modalist or Athanasian position. I also see little reason to argue about it.

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have always read that Tertullian, Novatian and Origen (and Hippolytus) wrote against monarchianism, rather than esposed it. Was not monarchianism related to modalism/sabellianism? If so, I would reject it as well.

It's good to be back amongst you learned folk.

Tony Piña
School of Education, La Sierra University
&
School of Education, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

ie, before the nicene creed 'aggenetos' (unbegotten) meant the same as 'agenetos' (uncreated). Grillmeier, 230.

There was much fluidity in the terminology. Even after the creed , the creed's use of hypostasis (subsistence) and ousia (nature) were debated as to whether those 300 bishops meant to use those words synonomously. Nestorius, of course, got himself in trouble by his capricious use of 'prosopon' as to whether it is 'person' or 'appearance of a person.'

This is another reason to accept church doctrine as a guide but not as holding unqualified authority. Yet autonomy makes it hard to find my ecclestiastical niche. So, I sit in my my tower and solve all the riddles of Christian theology to my own satisfaction.

But it is lonely being so very infallible