Theology subforum?

You know, I think this is exactly the opposite of what we were trying to do in the Liberal Christian subforum. The intent of the LC forum was to allow a heavy leeway for those with an aberrant view of Christianity while maintaining a sense of orthodoxy, as it were, in the Christianity forum. That is why I was in favor of the LC forum.

But this actually seems a better idea. Here, you can discuss topics on your own grounds, without feeling like people are bashing you for your beliefs. I'm for it.

Only, I hope that this won't become a soapbox area.
 
Dondi said:
You know, I think this is exactly the opposite of what we were trying to do in the Liberal Christian subforum. The intent of the LC forum was to allow a heavy leeway for those with an aberrant view of Christianity while maintaining a sense of orthodoxy, as it were, in the Christianity forum. That is why I was in favor of the LC forum.

But this actually seems a better idea. Here, you can discuss topics on your own grounds, without feeling like people are bashing you for your beliefs. I'm for it.

Only, I hope that this won't become a soapbox area.
Click to expand...
"aberrant," I resemble that remark.:D earl
 
wil said:
There exists a fishbowl discussion method whereby you can't bring up something previously stated accept for the purpose of reference and adding to it.

Sometimes the discussions get into a did, didn't, did, didn't with participants ignoring the salient points of the previous poster and rehashing items which deflect the discussion.

I don't know how you stop that.
Click to expand...
You would have to have a full time moderator/mediator, for the duration of the "meeting". It works but in timed and limited scope. the rules would have to be agreed upon forehand and be binding to all parties. Consequences would have to be accepted for deviating from the established rules defined for the purpose of the particular discussion or topic.

It works in the corporate world or an organized debate forum...but not elsewhere.
 
I said:
Good idea, Thomas - I hereby declare that we should have a Theology board under Belief & Spirituality, and that Thomas should be the moderator for that board. :)
Click to expand...

I am pleased to see Thomas nominated as a mod, I have long thought he would make a good one. ;)
 
Thanks Brian, and thanks for the votes of confidence, all.

Might I point out that the TSF is under 'Belief and Spirituality', so whilst I can mod according to the rules we establish and agree upon, I cannot mediate on matters beyond my knowledge ... this is for theology, not just Christian/Catholic discussion, as Lunamoth pointed out.

Anyway ... now to sort out the next steps ...

Thomas
 
it sounds absolutely ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned... what ur all asking for is a "special place", where only the partyline is toed...

why would people go there?

When people say... aw, the thread was derailed, what they often mean was... I wanted thread X to go this way, not that way...

mmm... does that not seem, well, a little dodgy?

like, you have an agenda? You want control, you want well, devotees??

Sure, of course, u suggest the agenda is really to "discuss weighty points of doctrine", but I don't see much weighty points of doctrine here, in general, and those that do such are usually just self styled gurus... (that's not directed at u, thomas, btw...)... I would love to see some real meaty intellectual discussions here... unfortunately, what I'm seeing is something else- I am being prompted to opine, not about religion, but about other, trivial things- my favourite film, novel... I don't want that...

yet, at the same time, I don't think we should collectively create discussions which we exclude others from...

whose opinion in particular shall we exclude? those who don't know the correct pagination of encyclical 23a? Those who cannot be bothered to google and "borrow" a few quotes to maintain their intellectual facade? Those who dare to disagree with the holy whore of Rome's current squeeze?

How about I set up a group where only heterosexuals can opine? Or only those with a penis? How about a place where only white people play?

you see, we are supposed to come here to discuss and explore... different people, of different faiths, discussing things...

unfortunately, what I see is something else... factions, and strata...

the factions are not up for discussion: they just want to spin their own partyline and have you swallow it, and the strata are the usual group or "social" climbers you meet everywhere...

the people nobody likes? They're usually the ones who's opinions are worth noting, even if you find them disagreeable, as if you find them disagreeable, and irrelevant, that says a lot about you, yourself...

I can go and get some books, written by other people, and we can discuss their opinions.. sure... but I would rather discuss yours, or anothers, than the words of some dead king or pope or guru...

I can never understand how supposedly intelligent people can cast aside their own hard won opinions and instead offer up the words of others like manna and then accept us not to object that they're mouldy, or past their sell by date...

I don't care what the Pope/Dalai Lama/Rabbi SoandSo says about hell... their opinion of hell will be no less or more valid than yours, or mine... why should it? Just because it says the sky is green in some old time text does not mean the sky really is green. We cannot discuss the merit of this old time text without taking into consideration the concept of both sky, and green. And if "Poster27" throws us a curved ball, and suggests the colour is really "chartreuse", then is it really an irrelevance?
 
As I understand it, and I am certainly open to correction, Thomas is seeking a venue to discuss doctrine and dogma. I have no problem with that, and I certainly hope he finds others willing to engage in such discussions.

Francis king said:
the people nobody likes? They're usually the ones who's opinions are worth noting, even if you find them disagreeable, as if you find them disagreeable, and irrelevant, that says a lot about you, yourself...
Click to expand...
Yes, but this *is* a two-edged sword, it swings *both* ways.

Francis king said:
I can go and get some books, written by other people, and we can discuss their opinions.. sure... but I would rather discuss yours, or anothers, than the words of some dead king or pope or guru...

I can never understand how supposedly intelligent people can cast aside their own hard won opinions and instead offer up the words of others like manna and then accept us not to object that they're mouldy, or past their sell by date...
Click to expand...
Name me one, just one, intelligent person who did not first learn from another person. There is absolutely no thought that is uniquely created in a vacuum, all thought is built upon reference and inspiration.

Francis king said:
I don't care what the Pope/Dalai Lama/Rabbi SoandSo says about hell... their opinion of hell will be no less or more valid than yours, or mine... why should it? Just because it says the sky is green in some old time text does not mean the sky really is green. We cannot discuss the merit of this old time text without taking into consideration the concept of both sky, and green. And if "Poster27" throws us a curved ball, and suggests the colour is really "chartreuse", then is it really an irrelevance?
Click to expand...
And that's all well and good. In some regards I agree with you, and I doubt I will have much to contribute to such a new board, mostly for reasons you mention.

The difference between us being I have no reservations with Thomas as least giving it a whirl and opening the opportunity for others should they wish to engage in such discussion.

Debating the finer points of doctrine is not my thing...but there are plenty here who do seem to enjoy it. Look how many willingly insert their cherished opinions on the nature of the trinity...all Thomas is seeking is a place to hold such discussions without being derailed by the inevitable "oh, you're all full of sh!t 'cause G-d doesn't exist anyway" crowd. I think it's a reasonable request, because there are plenty of other places where that line of reasoning is acceptable.

Nobody insists that you participate.
 
I still feel it is an area of censorship that is being instituted and this makes me uncomfortable. But this place has its rules and 1 or 2 more will make little difference when confined to one heading. So I don't care really. But I do have one proposal... it should be called "The Watching Paint Dry Section". I still think I could probably very easily google my way into posing my own legitimate atheistic posts there but I will refrain, go with the "spirit" :rolleyes: rather than the rules of what was intended.

tao
 
Long ago I made mention of the lack of an atheist board...a little tongue in cheek at the time, but if we're in the midst of revamping the site, maybe that is a reasonable request as well?

Not sure what one would put there...Neitze (sp?) maybe? Perhaps argue the finer points of what it means to be "superman" and the merits and demerits of Dawkins' memes?
 
Francis king said:
it sounds absolutely ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned... what ur all asking for is a "special place", where only the partyline is toed...

why would people go there?

When people say... aw, the thread was derailed, what they often mean was... I wanted thread X to go this way, not that way...

mmm... does that not seem, well, a little dodgy?

like, you have an agenda? You want control, you want well, devotees??

Sure, of course, u suggest the agenda is really to "discuss weighty points of doctrine", but I don't see much weighty points of doctrine here, in general, and those that do such are usually just self styled gurus... (that's not directed at u, thomas, btw...)... I would love to see some real meaty intellectual discussions here... unfortunately, what I'm seeing is something else- I am being prompted to opine, not about religion, but about other, trivial things- my favourite film, novel... I don't want that...

yet, at the same time, I don't think we should collectively create discussions which we exclude others from...

whose opinion in particular shall we exclude? those who don't know the correct pagination of encyclical 23a? Those who cannot be bothered to google and "borrow" a few quotes to maintain their intellectual facade? Those who dare to disagree with the holy whore of Rome's current squeeze?

How about I set up a group where only heterosexuals can opine? Or only those with a penis? How about a place where only white people play?

you see, we are supposed to come here to discuss and explore... different people, of different faiths, discussing things...

unfortunately, what I see is something else... factions, and strata...

the factions are not up for discussion: they just want to spin their own partyline and have you swallow it, and the strata are the usual group or "social" climbers you meet everywhere...

the people nobody likes? They're usually the ones who's opinions are worth noting, even if you find them disagreeable, as if you find them disagreeable, and irrelevant, that says a lot about you, yourself...

I can go and get some books, written by other people, and we can discuss their opinions.. sure... but I would rather discuss yours, or anothers, than the words of some dead king or pope or guru...

I can never understand how supposedly intelligent people can cast aside their own hard won opinions and instead offer up the words of others like manna and then accept us not to object that they're mouldy, or past their sell by date...

I don't care what the Pope/Dalai Lama/Rabbi SoandSo says about hell... their opinion of hell will be no less or more valid than yours, or mine... why should it? Just because it says the sky is green in some old time text does not mean the sky really is green. We cannot discuss the merit of this old time text without taking into consideration the concept of both sky, and green. And if "Poster27" throws us a curved ball, and suggests the colour is really "chartreuse", then is it really an irrelevance?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between discussing and "disgusting" (no slight towards you at all, Francis). The problem is some people can't do one without slipping into the other. "Pocketing" discussions is one way for people to keep some personal sense of identity without having it torn apart by another who opposes that identity, or feels that identity encroaching upon their own.

In short, who would want to "fence" with someone that has brought a battle axe?
 
juantoo3 said:
Long ago I made mention of the lack of an atheist board...a little tongue in cheek at the time, but if we're in the midst of revamping the site, maybe that is a reasonable request as well?

Not sure what one would put there...Neitze (sp?) maybe? Perhaps argue the finer points of what it means to be "superman" and the merits and demerits of Dawkins' memes?
Click to expand...
I think we have certain threads that already allow for such discussions (e.g. Nontheistic Christianity). The main theme of such a new forum might be the principles of morality without the need of a god to guide, or in reality, "Humanism".

Perhaps that would be a good forum to create...

v/r

Q
 
Why all the fuss? There are areas on this site I have never been in, and probably never will. That doesn't mean to say I am against them or wish they didn't exist. If nobody is interested in a Theology area then don't bloody go in it! Simple really isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top