dialogue about dialogue

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I do not actually hold myself to a denomination.. I am one person in the body of Christ. I am not JW.. I attend Calvary Chapel Fort Worth.

Trust me when I say that I am humbled at the mere thought that I would judge this world when I have been wrong so much of my life. It scares the hell out of me. I dont even CARE about that.. so being accused of having an ego is funny to me.

1Co 6:3 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

This is in the context of us not allowing the judgement of others to sway us from our carrying our cross.. which ironically is the issue right as we speak.. lol I will take that as a confirmation.


Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Mttw 4:9 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Mtthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

I am not going to lie and decieve you as to why I post here.. I live this life preparing for the eternity that waits after and I want everyone I meet to be with me when I go.. This is my life.. telling you about how much God loves you that He would send His only Son here to pay the price for your sins so that you could partake in His mercy and be with Him forever. Yeah thats the good news!

Or would you actually rather I lie to you? I dont lie very well. Seriously.

Well thank you for your reply. I have no wish here to insult anybody but to me this is no more than ego, regardless of the window dressing you wish to give it. Your ideas seem to mirror Moral Majority which is a Minority of fascist Christians however they wish to dress themselves. They are the intolerant book burners of the modern era. They relentlessly pursue genuine honest artists and deprive them of their liberty for years in their self-righteous judgementalism. I do not see your ideas as benign and well meaning, far from it. It is grandiose ideas of superiority that drive such beliefs. It is ego.

TE

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Who's orthodox? Thomas for sure, but who else? I can hear it now, "hey bud, this is the Orthodox board, non of that sola scriptura here. Now, run along and play with your little Liberal friends." I just think things should be labeled accurately. Orthodox is not the same as Conservative, Liberal is not a lost and found bin for non-traditionalists. Thomas is, from what I've seen so far, the sole representative of Orthodoxy. Quahom perhaps as well, I don't know. LunaMoth is the sole representative of Liberal Christianity from what I've seen. The rest of you all are a Heinz 57 of mostly conservative denominations. Then there's wil, who I understand is Unity, and Andrew and Nick who are Theosophists, and Tao, myself, and others who range from borderline atheists to syncretists of various stripes. We probably belong on B&S or down under on Philosophy.

I know this is a response from a few pages back, but I wanted to clarify a misunderstanding. By the term "Orthodox", I wasn't referring in the sense of the particular institutions like Catholic or Eastern Orthodox persuasions. But rather orthodox in that adherance to the historic Christian faith. Orthodox in terms of the basics of the Christian doctrine probably best reflected in the Nicene creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

It is from this basis that I proposed a forum where orthodox and conservative discussions can be held in a relatively safe haven from unorthodox influences, not as a means of banning those with a more liberal stance, but rather a place where there is a basic understanding of traditional Christianity.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

... Orthodox in terms of the basics of the Christian doctrine probably best reflected in the Nicene creed:

It is from this basis that I proposed a forum where orthodox and conservative discussions can be held in a relatively safe haven from unorthodox influences, not as a means of banning those with a more liberal stance, but rather a place where there is a basic understanding of traditional Christianity.

This is where it gets exceptionally tricky...as the Creed of which you speak was created in the fourth century as an attempt to combine the varied christian viewpoints of the day and eliminate those that Constantine and the Church deemed outside of their beliefs. And we have churches which accept the creed but still argue particulars and just like our variance in ten commandments we now have more than one creed...

In addition many of the very orthodox, the very liberal, the very literal, and the very .... believe that they are following the original teachings of Jesus and the bible and that their origins predate the creed and that they are truly orthodox/conservative despite current titles...

All quite tricky.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

This is where it gets exceptionally tricky...as the Creed of which you speak was created in the fourth century as an attempt to combine the varied christian viewpoints of the day and eliminate those that Constantine and the Church deemed outside of their beliefs. And we have churches which accept the creed but still argue particulars and just like our variance in ten commandments we now have more than one creed...

In addition many of the very orthodox, the very liberal, the very literal, and the very .... believe that they are following the original teachings of Jesus and the bible and that their origins predate the creed and that they are truly orthodox/conservative despite current titles...

All quite tricky.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed was to establish an orthodox stance to prevent unbiblical errors from creeping into the Church. There were various groups denying such biblically established doctrines such as the virgin birth and the diety of Christ. Why it took so long to establish this sort of statement, I don't know. But there are plenty of warnings scattered all through the New Testament against false teachings and false prophets. But at least the Creed was a statement that is agreed upon by the Church at large (both Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant). And the commonality of the document ought to serve as a starting point.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I love blogs! yay!!

Glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

He is just not as subtle as I am. I AM here to bring people to Jesus Christ..probably not a surprise to most!

The big difference is, you can express yourself as part of dialogue - you can make your point without feeling like you need to ram it down someone's throat.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well thank you for your reply. I have no wish here to insult anybody but to me this is no more than ego, regardless of the window dressing you wish to give it. Your ideas seem to mirror Moral Majority which is a Minority of fascist Christians however they wish to dress themselves. They are the intolerant book burners of the modern era. They relentlessly pursue genuine honest artists and deprive them of their liberty for years in their self-righteous judgementalism. I do not see your ideas as benign and well meaning, far from it. It is grandiose ideas of superiority that drive such beliefs. It is ego.

TE

Tao, chill.

I don't think Faithful Servant has done anything to warrant your vitriolic attack.

Instead, you've determined that an individual represents something larger that you dislike, and therefore attack the individual - but that's not cricket.

Treat individuals as the individuals they are, and don't treat them as scapegoats for general hates, and you may just find some of the very people you claim to hate can actually be decent, well-intended, well-mannered and pleasant people to dialogue with.

Unless Faithful Servant belongs to any specific organisation that's beating up on people, I suggest you refrain from trying to claim such an association.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well thank you for your reply. I have no wish here to insult anybody but to me this is no more than ego, regardless of the window dressing you wish to give it. Your ideas seem to mirror Moral Majority which is a Minority of fascist Christians however they wish to dress themselves. They are the intolerant book burners of the modern era. They relentlessly pursue genuine honest artists and deprive them of their liberty for years in their self-righteous judgementalism. I do not see your ideas as benign and well meaning, far from it. It is grandiose ideas of superiority that drive such beliefs. It is ego.

TE

Thank you Brian for that wonderful defense... You made me blush!

TE, I think that you misunderstand people like me. Try to think of it like this.. I have discovered a cure and I want to tell the whole world about it. Ego would be keeping it to myself because Im the only one that deserves it and was smart enough to figure it out? I tell you that the only reason I got it was because I was sick and I needed it and I realized I was going to die.

As far as Artists are concerned? Our creator is a brilliant artist and we are made in His image...so why would I have a problem with art or the artist that exalts Him and His creation?? Its circular reasoning..Is it a nudity thing? I think the body is a brilliant work of art and I am not offended by it at all..

Im an avid bookworm also... You are throwing all these things at me without knowing who I am.. I read sci-fi / fantasy.. I love historical romances.. Ive read everything by Stephen King and Laurell K Hamilton.

Fascism? Come on. I work in the financial industry if anything Im a Capitalist / Republican

So tell me.. who has the ego here and who is unfairly judging the other?

honestly.

[Snoopy]

OK in all honesty I am confused and have no axe to grind (at the minute!)

Dondi says:

“Witnessing, or prostylizing, is against forum rules.”

Then faithfulservant says:

“Silas and I are guilty of the exact same thing. He is just not as subtle as I am. I AM here to bring people to Jesus Christ..probably not a surprise to most! I have been commanded to go throughout the world and spread the gospel by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... that is and should be the most important thing in my life. I had long discourses with Silas about how to evangelize on this forum and he did good for awhile but then he would get emotional and more direct which is a symptom of spiritual immaturity.”

Is it all about the interpretation of >>>

2. We do not allow CR to be used as a soapbox to aggressively promote any faith, or see any faith aggressively attacked.

??

Just looking for some clarification really.

s.

[ardenz]

2. We do not allow CR to be used as a soapbox to aggressively promote any faith, or see any faith aggressively attacked.

??

Just looking for some clarification really.

s.

me too.......I do not want to being missionaried to , or whatever way that may be interpreted

[Faithfulservant]

This might help.

Code of Conduct

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by ardenz

me too.......I do not want to being missionaried to , or whatever way that may be interpreted

Im not shoving anything down anyones throat.. If you dont want to read what I have to say you dont have to read it.

I have no problem being guilty of loving you. Ive been guilty of worse. Trust me on that.

[bananabrain]

gosh, this thread's been popular while i've been away this weekend!

Originally Posted by ardenz

What this brings up, as Wil, in the above post mentions, is what going on in this persons mind? can we help? writing off someone as on the lunatic fringe discounts what they may actually be going through.

we are not mental health professionals. i cannot take responsibility from someone who wishes to use CR instead of going to see his doctor or therapist. we're just not here for that. fortunately, it is not a very common problem.

Obviously a site like this is going to continue to attract people who may have a mission, personal or otherwise.

well, that's as may be, but CR is not here to support such people. CR has its own mission, which is to support dialogue - not personal crusades, jihads or anything else, with all that that implies.

I certainly believe that doing "witnessing" (a christian practice, I believe) with someone who has serious problems is a "crazy idea" - I would sooner suggest someone visit to a medical doctor, or psychiatrist.

i agree - and we have done this on a regular basis, to shadowman, for example. he doesn't seem to have taken the hint as yet, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Why not just a simple 7day blanket ban from posting? Then someone has the opportunity to reflect rather than find ways to continue an argument through moderation.

hmm. i don't think this is too bad an idea. what do you think, brian?

Originally Posted by Dondi

You might ask, would it be proper to have this kind of separation in say the Judaism boards, since there are distinct flavors of Judaism? I dunno, but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem there since there are currently two jewish members on board. For the Islam board, I have no answer, for I am less familiar with distinctions in that faith. But how these boards run are not really my concern, since I'm not a part of them.

there are actually more jewish people here than that - but dauer and i are mods, plus we are very visible and vocal. i would answer that both dauer and i, for all our ideological and theological differences, have a certain amount of common ground when it comes to issues of judaism as a group. i think i can speak for both of us when i say that we'd both like judaism to be as inclusive as possible, whilst still maintaining some standards - obviously we disagree on what those standards are, but at least we agree we have them. it's that we really see the benefit in maintaining a civil dialogue relationship despite the fact that we really disagree on a lot of stuff. there is also a principle in judaism known as "klal yisra'el" which is, on some level, about the importance of jewish unity - although this should not be taken to mean that we actually agree on anything! i think it's more about a sort of family feeling in environments like this.

Originally Posted by traveler

I see religion as an artifact of not closely examining the true nature of our personal beliefs. I know that sounds strange, but often we coast along in autopilot, spouting the party line, knowing what we stand for because we are standing in a certain group. When we take the leap of truthfully examining our real inner terrain, what we in fact believe, what truly motivates our actions, is often quite different.

ok, traveler, but you could drive a rather large coach-and-horses through the holes in this statement, such as your qualifier of "i see", your generalisations about other peoples' inner experience and your glib assumption that what "truly motivates us" can in fact be extracted and analysed. philosophically, that just doesn't stack up.

Originally Posted by wil

is just that on the regular Christianity board we couldn't discuss whether or not hell or heaven or Jesus or the trinity exists.

in jewish terms, there are certain subjects and ways of approaching them that i believe are not conducive to dialogue. when a neo-nazi, or a holocaust denier, for example, as has happened, shows up and starts spouting his line, i fail to see what is to be achieved by engaging with him. similarly, people who show up and start making statements about what other people are alleged by them to believe, or dispute the honesty of personal statements of faith are, i believe, flying in the face of dialogue. there's just not enough common ground there for a dialogue to start if one person treats it as a diatribe. niranjan was a case in point imho.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

For goodness sakes, the main Christian forum includes JW, LDS, YECs and SDAs

really? who are the LDS, YECs and SDAs? i've never noticed them!

People may not like or agree with what someone like Spong or Tillich has to say...but what they are talking about is Christian theology.

that's kind of why i think you ought to be able to have everyone in the christian forum - if only to show newbies that our christian forum is not only conservative-friendly. the trouble is for me when as has happened, the forum membership tips too far one way, so a sizable minority end up schisming. i suppose it's the church in miniature - plus ça change!

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I think it's more likely that the Theosophists and neo-Gnostics were the thorn in the side of the conservatives, and since Liberal is such a pervasively pejorative term to them they stereotyped and mislabeled all the heretics in their rush to retain hegemony over the symbolic capitol of Christendom on the Abrahamic board. I'm just guessing.

hmm. it seems to me that theosophists and neo-gnostics seem to make a point of enjoying dancing around in front of conservatives and saying "HERE i am! i'm a HERETIC! boogy boogy boogy! listen to *me*! don't i annoy you? don't i? don't i? your beliefs are a bunch of DOGMA - only *we* are clever enough to see through all that!!! am i annoying you yet??? here's a....TRACT.... from our voluminous *writings*!!" and then acting all "ooh, look at me..i'm a MARTYR now!!!" - and, at any rate, if you have no petard to hoist, then you're in the minority as far as our theosophists and neo-gnostics are concerned.

Originally Posted by FaithfulServant

This is in the context of us not allowing
the judgement of others to sway us from our carrying our cross.. which ironically is the issue right as we speak.. lol I will take that as a confirmation

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do not see your ideas as benign and well meaning, far from it. It is grandiose ideas of superiority that drive such beliefs. It is ego.

i suppose the above exchange between TE and FS above really rather illustrates the point, which is that it is extremely difficult to maintain a space in which people who insist on clear definitions, labels and domains can interact with people who see precisely those things as intrusive, tendentious and limiting. as you both know, i agree with both - and neither - of you! however, i don't see why that means we can't be civil to each other, which i suppose is brian's point.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Civility, I think is an essential requirement of interfaith dialogue. Because of the nature of the subject matter, things are always going to get rocky sometimes, or people will post in the heat of the moment and regret it, and that's always going to be taken into account. There needs to be a general acceptance I think that making one or two mistakes doesn't a bad person make.

However, I absolutely draw the line at people who want to turn CR into their own personal marketing channel. It serves the interests of a minority, and the internet allows these people to set up their own marketing in their own space, under their own rules.

*claps loudly*

If I'm in a pub or restaurant, and someone starts shouting at the clients and won't calm down and generally acts disruptive, I expect that they will be ejected from the premises - else I'll be the one to leave and not return. If the behaviour is tolerated, how many people will care to visit such a place? Who will be motivated most to visit it if aggressive behaviour is openly accepted?

precisely!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Brian,

I would like to make it clear that it is not my intention to attack Faithfulservant as a person but that my objection is very firmly centred in this notion of Judgement. A core belief of mine is that concepts of Judgement by one group on another are the cause of all conflict in the world. Too often this is elevated to Divine Judgement and that is when it invariable becomes not a belief but a dangerous propaganda weapon. As a humanist inclined individual I feel it incumbent on me to raise this issue where I see such a declaration of superiority made. Not because I have any desire to insult Faithfulservant or attack her on a personal level but because I find the concept abhorrent.


Faithfulservant,

Maybe I have come across a little too aggressively and should have taken the time to question you further and define what you initially stated. You have told me some things but not enough really for me to be clear where you are coming from with your statements. Do you support the Moral Majority movement? For example. Your statements on Judgement seem very akin to those. Do you understand my recoil at the concept of Judgement and why I have reacted so heatedly?

As I said above to Brian I find the concept of Judgement unacceptable. It is the skeleton of many evils perpetrated in all land in all times. So tell me, you are awaiting me in the here-after. I have not come to your ideas, I remain unbaptised, dismissive of religions in general. What is my fate at your hands?

TE

[Prober]

"And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." Luke 19:40

[Prober]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

really? who are the LDS, YECs and SDAs? i've never noticed them!

SDA? That's me.

hmm. it seems to me that theosophists and neo-gnostics seem to make a point of enjoying dancing around in front of conservatives and saying "HERE i am! i'm a HERETIC! boogy boogy boogy! listen to *me*! don't i annoy you? don't i? don't i? your beliefs are a bunch of DOGMA - only *we* are clever enough to see through all that!!! am i annoying you yet??? here's a....TRACT.... from our voluminous *writings*!!" and then acting all "ooh, look at me..i'm a MARTYR now!!!" - and, at any rate, if you have no petard to hoist, then you're in the minority as far as our theosophists and neo-gnostics are concerned.