Just for a correction of metaphors, I'd say that to give folks the benefit of the doubt, the
good in a `theology' subforum would be the ability to impose a certain
order on the way a particular
section of the Garden already grows. If the problem seems to be that there are different opinions on how best to cultivate the roses ... then it seems reasonable to set some standards and see how this impacts the Garden, for awhle. After all, it's not as if the entire Garden is being replanted, or
all of the flowers' growing methods adjusted. And no one, Q, is knocking down walls.
If anything, a theology subforum is the setting up of NEW walls within an already-walled, or
protected, Garden. But in terms of the metaphor, it's a bit like cordoning off a little portion of the
rose garden, and deciding that
these roses here will subscribe to such & such "rules of order,"
if they wish to participate. {For God's sake, please just leave the
lilies and lilacs alone!
}
Frankly, and personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in the theology subforum. The potential problem is that you're giving the
Vatican its own little section in the Garden ... and we don't really have any reason to believe that this is not
literally just a move toward take-over, albeit on a very, very small scale.
Tao is right, and having known Thomas, his personal agendas, and precisely what it is he is seeking (regardless as to what he
says, since actions speak
louder than words) ... I will say again, YOU WON'T FIND ME posting in there, DEAD. For some folks, that might be just one more piece of incentive to
cast a vote to set up this section
post haste! lol
And that's okay. Thomas has accused me time and again of
ad hominem attacks, and when that won't fly, of having
my own personal agendas which include pretty much rampant Catholic-bashing, Christian-bashing or simply
promotion of the Theosophical teachings as somehow superior to any other presentation of the Wisdom Religion.
Thomas will one day have to come to terms with how things work. If you
put on the collective karma, or even simply the current
public face of the Church in Rome as the
worldly institution that it is
and always has been... and try to justify the corruption, then dare to speak of it as
a Pilot Light among men -- then sooner or later YOU may be the last to find out ...
the emperor has no clothes.
If your agenda is to try and protect the
good name and unspoilable reputation of your favorite baby daughter ... despite the fact that every chap in her graduating class has known her --
well, in the `Biblical' sense -- then sooner or later
someone needs to help you understand that
it ain't quite like you thought it was, right down to the gradually rising bulge in her belly.
Yes, let's dwell upon the positive; I'm all for that. But isn't it funny how
every time someone tries to bring up something that
doesn't agree with the `official' version, as stamped and sealed in 14 karat Vatican-issue GOLD ... without providing
8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back o' each one explaining what each one is ... they are accused of having their own agendas,and of being "
unscholarly."
Yes, on a recent thread, I dared to suggest that the
Intuition could be grounds enough for believing certain things, and Thomas here took me to task for it. Chris, you're all too happy to chime in, since my statements apparently seem to you
unfounded ... though Thomas, as we know, will argue ANYTHING, with ANYONE, if it dares dispute some obscure
Church pronouncement somewhere.
And as I further pointed out, the irony is that the demand for
PROOF and "substantiation" comes
from someone who can hardly keep from boasting of his own FAITH in every other post. Apparently this
Faith is capable of inventing & sustaining all sorts of "good reason" for belief in a
whole slew of absurdities -- even
resolving matters which no
schoolchild of even mediocre intellect would accept as satisfactorily. Yet the
grounds for making such a whimsical appeal always conveniently point in
circular fashion (logic-wise) right back to
"on the authority of the Church in Rome."
Yes, I
would like to see how the new forum becomes anything other than a soapbox for
"the official teachings of the official version of Roman Catho --- I mean, Christianity (ah yes, let us cast our net wide)" ... but then, as I say, it will have to come to me
by a little bird, because I already know which ego (and set of those
thusly feathered) will prevail. once the wheels start turning.
You might think in being so outspoken that I oppose the notion, or think it's a poor idea. I don't. I agree that such a subforum has promise; maybe it's even necessary. I just hope it doesn't become what some want it to be -- whether they admit it or not.
Exploring history, and heady philosophies is one thing. Trying to pull a
walter cronkite is another. He got away with it because he was an anchorman, though he also spent plenty of time
in the field.
What is this
field which makes one an
authority on early Christianity, on the Trinity, on the
subtleties or the inner workings of
mind, Spirit -- much less the Heart (or essence) of God!
Christ seemed to feel it was
Service. Somewhere, somehow, that got confused with
having all the trappings, saying all the right things with
just the right accent ... and perhaps penning something so absolutely
brilliant & stunning that keen minds and bright intellects 15 centuries later would
still be marveling over it, none the wiser for the
gloss it always has been on --
Reality.
Like I said, Christ was convinced He was here to
Serve.
Thomas, I wish you the best in moderating the new sub-forum. There's a tremendous amount of Good that can come from it, and I'm glad you're up to the task ... despite a busy workload.
In a sanctuary with a thousand beautiful stained-glass windows, you only have to break
a little glass sometimes in order to let in the Light. Make your rubbings while they last.
One Earth, One Church, One People --
someday ... 
