Religion ?

Please visit my new forum at TheologyReview.com.

It is brand new and just opened, so when you visit, it might be a little empty, but it won't stay that way, at least not with your help.

I am posting this here because of the educational background of many of our Theology majors. It would be nice to get their educated input on many of these religious issues.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

It looks like a great forum, meagain. Congratulations.

I sincerely hope that the individuals who insist on posting theological (read Christian) discussions on a forum dedicated to distance learning will post their religious messages there instead of here. In that manner, both forums would benefit.

 

Re: Re: Religion ?

------


No Gus I intend to make it my daily routine to post theology here every day ...only now with increased digilence

 

Let's Help Gus

Please share your dilligence with the members at my forum.

That way my forum members will benefit, as well as Gus.

Then Gus can have it both ways.

 

Thanks Bill

Bill,

Please continue. I look forward to reading your posts, along with those by North, Russell, Uncle Janko, Tom Head, Clint, and even Steve Levicoff (when he graces us), and many others. Collectively, you have influenced my distance learning goals.

Why is it socially acceptable for anyone and everyone to suggest that Christians should be restrained from discussing religion in secular settings?

 

Re: Thanks Bill

First of all, no one has suggested that Christians should be restrained from discussing religion in secular settings. However, speaking of social acceptability, why should the members of this forum, who congregate here to discuss education and degrees (the raison d'être of this forum) have to wade through a veritable plethora of religious discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with education or a particular degree program? Why?

Secondly, why do Christians merit special consideration? If the sports fanatics, music aficionados, movie buffs, and porn freaks started inflicting upon us the same volume of posts about their predilections as the Christians now do, how many would politely suggest (as I have done) that there are other (and perhaps better) venues for those kinds of discussions? What makes Christians exempt from what constitutes polite civil discourse?

 

Re: Re: Thanks Bill

Off-topic discussions
Jokes, banter, comments, etc. that are either not related or very peripherally related to the general discussions of DL

It would appear that if one was discussing anything about (unless it is peripherally related) to DL in this particular forum, that they would be in the wrong place. As you say, religious discussions may have little or nothing to do with education, but isn't that the reason for the Off-topic forum??
Surely a discussion about theology between Bill G, Tom Head and Russell has as much to do with education as Oxpecker's link to a picture of the US President that has a skeleton xray (though it was funny).

clint

 

Re: Re: Thanks Bill

 

Precisely. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the purpose of the Off-Topic Discussion Forum is to foster a feeling of community among DegreeInfo members. As such, the intent is for the discussions to be light-hearted (hence jokes, banter., comments, etc.).

The posts I am concerned with don’t quite fit the definition (much less the intent) of jokes, banter, comments, etc.; perhaps more importantly, they are divisive instead of unifying, and therefore probably at odds with the purpose of the Off-Topic Discussion Forum.

I too enjoy Tom’s post as they frequently, as I do, take a much broader view of religion. Both Bill and Russell have made valuable contributions to this forum (although their puerile jabs at each other ceased to be funny somewhere around the fortieth or fiftieth exchange) and I’m sure they will continue to do so in the future. In my opinion, however, oxpecker’s post (as was Charles’ Jesus Saves joke) is probably closer to the intent of the Off-Topic Discussion Forum precisely because it was light-hearted and funny. These posts are non-combative and unifying, as opposed to what passes for theological discussion.

Moreover, that, precisely, is my point. How much true discussion about religion and theology is really taking place? I see very little respectful intellectual discourse. Instead I see an unending game of scriptural one-upmanship, based on flawed premises and assumptions. How does one have an intelligent discussion when each individual is trying to assert his or her ground rules for the discussion? An unending cacophony of obtuse viewpoints and ad hominem attacks is taking place under the protective guise of “religious” discussion. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I am vehemently opposed to censorship. I simply politely suggested a bit more decorum and discernment for the reason members congregate here.

 

First, please understand that I mean no offense by my post(s). But I really disagree (at least partly) with what you said. I understand that many of the regular posters here have no interest in Christianity (and often no religion at all). I have no problem with that. However, many of us do have an interest in this area. You stated that in your view, one of the reasons for this off-topic forum was to help us to develop a sense of community. I totally agree with that. But for me, my Christian beliefs are the defining characteristic of who I am. I know this is true for many others, also. It would be absolutely impossible for me to assimilate into any community in which my Christianity couldn't be acknowledged, discussed and refined.

Having said that, I don't read every post about religion (or even Christianity) here. Sometimes I get tired of the discussions. Sometimes the discussion just doesn't interest me. When that is the case, I just don't read it. I read the latest posts about the ULC for about the first page, then lost interest. Sometimes when the discussions delve deeply into the Greek text, I tune out. But for those who are engaging in the conversation, it is an important time for them to develop their online relationship - to put a peice of themselves into this community.

I agree that sometimes the discussions become less than friendly. That is too bad. I wish it wasn't that way. I also notice that frequently, in the other forum (that IS about DL) we also have some unfriendly spats. Thats too bad, too.

As to your suggestion that comments here should be lighthearted, etc. I have no problem with lighthearted comments here. It is the appropriate place. But it would seem that the words "comment" and "banter" are pretty big words. I would think there is room here for people to talk about religion.

clint

 

Russell’s recent thread is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It started out as a light-hearted commentary on what he considers an ordination mill. Russell felt that there were obvious parallels between ordination mills and degree mills. Rich opined as to the legality and disagreed with the analogy of a degree mill. Bill Dayson then commented on the difference between religion and scholarship and questions what the standards for ordination were. Next thing you know, civil discourse ceases, and ad hominem attacks begin. In other words, what could have been an interesting discussion of ordination standards, or constitutional guarantees, degenerated rapidly into a free for all with the by now familiar theme: My theology is bigger and better than yours (and did I mention that you will burn in hell for all eternity because you don’t believe as I do?).

At one point, here’s what Russell posted:

• 
  ”Yes, lets talk about our religious positions!!!”

That’s not quite what the title of the thread indicated, was it? Why not start a thread entitled Your Theology Is Crap And You Will Burn In Hell In Excruciating Pain For All Eternity Because Of It! That way, those of us who enjoy intellectual discourse (even those of a theological, religious, and philosophical nature) would be forewarned.

This illustrates my point precisely! Please point out a single quote where I have expressed nonChristian or anti Christian sentiments. What hubris! What makes you think that you are, in any shape or form, a bigger or better Christian than me? The mere fact that you entertain such a thought negates the possibility.

Yes, and some have brought up a certain poster’s habit of flooding this newsgroup with political posts. Nobody cried foul or rose to that individual’s defense. As I said, I would feel the same if the sports fanatics, music aficionados, movie buffs, and porn freaks started flooding this forum with post concerning their predilections.

I didn’t claim anyone received special consideration, did I? It was a rhetorical question in answer to the implication that Christians were being singled-out for persecution. (Much the same as you are implying.)

I am not opposed to religious, theological, or philosophical discussions; I am, however, opposed to intellectual dishonesty.

 

Just a couple of questions for Gus.

I don't intend to get cantakerous like Bill does, I'm just glad he's doing that job for me.

Wouldn't seeing discussions about theology, philosophy, etc., when they interrupt and "get in the way" of better discussion aid a student in understanding how it is an inseparable part of life? Wouldn't such discussions help students to navigate through divisive issues?

How does one read today's newspaper and not see that religion is an integral part of contemporary, global issues?

How could my poll on vouchers have possibly avoided the issue of religion? Where should that poll have been posted? There are clear implications for Unk's Lutheran position over and against the common, "Bible believing" evangelical stance when it comes to vouchers. This is a demographic, as well as a religious issue. Mark my words, it will affect policymaking.

Just a couple of examples. I wholeheartedly send you back to your religion-free world of artificial shalom.

Chris

 

How about we all just take a deeep breath. Now swallow. Now fart. There. Isn't that better?

Religionists--keep it down to a dull roar. Briefer roars might be good, too.
Non-religionists--don't read what you know in advance you won't like and find boring.

FWIW, in the traditional (western) church year, today is Holy Saturday, when Christ lay dead in the borrowed tomb. It is the quietest day in the liturgical round, with nearly unbroken silence until midnight signals the beginning of Easter Day. It is for Christians a time of somber reflection and poignant peace.

So to the non-religious and members of other religions: may peace and wisdom attend you in your life and study.
To the Jews: happy Passover, because liberation is both history and permanent hope.
To the Christians: keep watch.

 

Exactly where, in this thread, did I say that? I stated that the overriding theme is that of theological one-upmanship, and the underlying (and I meant it quite tongue in cheek) implication is damnation for nonbelievers. But for the record, do you believe Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Catholics, or Zoroastrians will be allowed into your Heaven? If not, where do you believe they go when they die? I look forward to you exegetical commentary.

Do you see what I mean about intellectual dishonesty? Where did I state the Scriptures of Christianity say that one's religion is an accident? (And it’s Santayana, not Santana—big difference.) You characterizations of Santayana as an anti-Christian writer (would you say the same of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or John Adams?) does, in no way, prove his statement false. I happen to agree with his statement. If Bill Grover, had been born to Jewish parents, he more than likely would have been Jewish. If he had been born to Muslim parents, he would be conducting exegesis of the Koran. Does the logic of that elude you?

Where did you say that? Surely you jest. In an earlier post in this thread you accused me of “expressing your nonChristian or anti Christian sentiments.” For someone who professes to cherish and excel at exegesis you seem incapable of understanding what you yourself write. You profess to be a Christian and you blatantly accuse me of being a non-Christian or anti-Christian. Yet, you have difficulty understanding how someone could interpret that as you being a bigger or better Christian than him or her?

You just don’t get it, do you? First, the discussion on the war (of which you were one of the most prolific posters) was topical. Second, I don’t believe the implications concerning the viewpoints on the war have such dire consequences (as it has been suggested theological viewpoints have) depending on whether these views where pro or con. Third, I believe everyone was united in supporting our troops and wishing for their safe and speedy return home. Fourth, the volume of posts is not nearly quite as controversial or pervasive.

No, I didn’t suggest it, so I need no grounds. Please reread (this time for meaning) the rhetorical question I asked, and the sentence that followed it , as they are directly related. Please stop quoting me out of context and insisting that your inferences are analogous to my intentions.

Also, please show me where I explicitly stated that anyone in the ordination thread said that if others don't agree with his religious beliefs then those will burn in hell. I never did.

But if you need proof of the underlying implications of many of these discussions, answer the following questions truthfully. Will there be nonbelievers and those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior next you in Heaven? Can you really call it Heaven if this were to be so? I’m just asking. In your opinion, what do the scriptures say?

 

Uncle Janko,

I hope that you don't mind that I quoted you at my forum. I found your comment to be facinating.

Posted Here

 

If you believe the guys in the cheap suits and skinny ties, there ain't no room for non-believers and I think the Bible is specific on this.

Catholics are not in the category of non-believers. They have a special part of heaven where they get listen to confessions of impure thoughts and not honouring mothers and fathers for an eternity.