Post Reply
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2010 - 11:00AM #21
bigbear6161
Posts: 4,191

Feb 11, 2010 -- 12:12AM, SeraphimR wrote:


Feb 10, 2010 -- 7:13PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Seraphim, It is a shame that the powers that be often penalize progressives for their beliefs.  Sometimes depending on the audience, one might emphasize more traditionalist ideas but when in the company of more progressive folks one might emphasized progressive ideas.  You have to find some common ground, and it depends how much controversy you want at any given time.  For instance, I feel pretty confident discussing very progressive even post-theistic and post-Christian ideas on Beliefnet.  But when my in-laws were living, I would never go there with them.  They wouldn't have been able to handle these ideas because of their very orthodox Catholic background.  I never felt the need to shock them so to speak.  You have to speak the language of the people you are talking to or you get nowhere.  If the orthodox ultra traditionalists (who currently hold the power) would allow free debate within the churches, then progressives might be more emboldened to speak up.


Dave




Dave:


Where do you get the idea that a church is a debating society?


It is not.  It is a place to worship the Christian God.  Why would a post-Christian non-theistic pastor or priest want to lead the worship of the Christian God?  In what way is it anything but dishonest to do so?





Seraphim,


The Church is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Mystical Bride of Christ.  As such, its members hold various theological positions and our liturgy, worship, religious images/symbols, and doctrines should reflect this diversity.  Thus, theologians, clergy, religious and laity must be exposed to and participate in these debates.


Post-theistic and post-Christian trends within all of us including clergy (and I am not a clergyman) do not remove us from being the Church.  Christianity has always from the beginning been extremely diverse.  There is no dishonesty in exploring alternative threads within our robust Christian religious system.  Priests, ministers, etc., exercise their pastoral responsibility when they act in this role. 


Stop trying to squelch the progressive wing of our Churches.  If you explored it a little, and if the theological police stopped censoring progressive formulations, then we might get somewhere in our understanding so that Church (all of us see above) can deepen our experience of the Sacred.


Peace, Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 1:35AM #22
SeraphimR
Posts: 10,103

Feb 11, 2010 -- 11:00AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


[
Seraphim,


The Church is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Mystical Bride of Christ.  As such, its members hold various theological positions and our liturgy, worship, religious images/symbols, and doctrines should reflect this diversity. Nonsequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.


 


  Thus, theologians, clergy, religious and laity must be exposed to and participate in these debates. Why?


Post-theistic and post-Christian trends within all of us including clergy (and I am not a clergyman) do not remove us from being the Church. Yes they do!


  Christianity has always from the beginning been extremely diverse.  The errors were purged.  Why introduce them?  There is no dishonesty in exploring alternative threads within our robust Christian religious system.  Priests, ministers, etc., exercise their pastoral responsibility when they act in this role. 


Stop trying to squelch the progressive wing of our Churches.  If you explored it a little, and if the theological police stopped censoring progressive formulations, then we might get somewhere in our understanding so that Church (all of us see above) can deepen our experience of the Sacred.


It was all figured out a long time ago.


Peace, Dave





People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 1:37AM #23
SeraphimR
Posts: 10,103

Feb 11, 2010 -- 4:33PM, Spiritualsojourner wrote:


Seraphim, what would be the ideal form of Christianity in you're opinion? Or, what are some ideal forms of Christianity already out there in you're opinion. Or, you could answer both, and kill two "theological" birds with one "holy" stone.



I am an Orthodox Christian.  The Orthodox Church is far from ideal, but it is the closest you'll get this side of heaven.

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 5:37AM #24
Ralph.m
Posts: 159

Feb 4, 2010 -- 4:16AM, SeraphimR wrote:


Feb 3, 2010 -- 5:59AM, Ralph.m wrote:


The world will be a safer place without fundamentalists who can't accept other people thinking differently -- and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about religious fundamentalists or secular fundamentalists!




I wonder if you can appreciate the irony of this sentence.



There is no irony! Any connection with the truth is intentional, not accidental.  Simple fact is that there are people with all kinds of sets of belief, who insist that only they or their group possess the truth, and their truth is something that everyone else needs. No surprise that this self-centered "everyone should think like me" attitude is the source of so much conflict in the world.


But in any case, I, like the fundamentalist atheists, believe the truth is something in particular and it is worth fighting for.



Now, do you understand the irony of that sentence?


And I do assert that myths are either historically true or they are worthless stories.  (Well, not worthless, exactly.  Some are quite entertaining, like Jason and the Argonauts.  Others are pretty appaling, like Krishna having so many children he ended up eating them.)



Myths are intended to be stories to live by, not to entertain or amuse an audience. Myths are intended to help us cope with the human condition: to give our lives a sense of purpose, to deal with death of loved ones, suffering and evil in the world, our own mortality etc. 


If you think myths have to be historical to have meaning, you may want to study your New Testament a little.  Why did Jesus use parables to teach his disciples and audiences who gathered around him? Did Jesus say the Parable of the Prodigal Son or the Parable of the Good Samaritan were true stories? Would it have mattered?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 7:47AM #25
bigbear6161
Posts: 4,191

Seraphim,


Diversity does not equal error.  You say nothing in your post.  Orthodoxy (with a small "o" )did not purge error unless you are using the word like Stalin used it.  Orthodoxy became the norm but it does not mean we shouldn't go back and rediscover what such folks were getting at before they were censored by the Catholic powers that be.  Especially so when our current world view does not permit us to accept orthodox formulations.  Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 10:50AM #26
SeraphimR
Posts: 10,103

Feb 12, 2010 -- 7:47AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Seraphim,


Diversity does not equal error.  You say nothing in your post.  Orthodoxy (with a small "o" )did not purge error unless you are using the word like Stalin used it.  Orthodoxy became the norm but it does not mean we shouldn't go back and rediscover what such folks were getting at before they were censored by the Catholic powers that be.  Especially so when our current world view does not permit us to accept orthodox formulations.  Dave




Do you think we should teach diversity in Biology class?  I could probably come up with five or six different explanations for the origin of species.


If your current worldview does not permit you to accept orthodox formulations the fault, dear sir lies not in the formulations but in your worldview.  But I am happy if you want to nurture your worldview.  Just do so in organizations separate from the Church.  Why should we subsidize the activities of people who wish to subvert our worldview?

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 11:00AM #27
SeraphimR
Posts: 10,103

Feb 12, 2010 -- 5:37AM, Ralph.m wrote:


But in any case, I, like the fundamentalist atheists, believe the truth is something in particular and it is worth fighting for.



Now, do you understand the irony of that sentence?


Yes, I do.


And I do assert that myths are either historically true or they are worthless stories.  (Well, not worthless, exactly.  Some are quite entertaining, like Jason and the Argonauts.  Others are pretty appaling, like Krishna having so many children he ended up eating them.)



Myths are intended to be stories to live by, not to entertain or amuse an audience. Myths are intended to help us cope with the human condition: to give our lives a sense of purpose, to deal with death of loved ones, suffering and evil in the world, our own mortality etc. 


If you think myths have to be historical to have meaning, you may want to study your New Testament a little.  Why did Jesus use parables to teach his disciples and audiences who gathered around him? Did Jesus say the Parable of the Prodigal Son or the Parable of the Good Samaritan were true stories? Would it have mattered?




The parables get a pass because they were spoken by the Man-God Jesus Christ.  They are reliable.


But other myths are just stories, like Jason and the Argonauts.  Maybe they give our lives a sense of purpose, but do they actually tell us what the true purpose of our lives is?  No, just someones opinion, at best.


Human history is a parable authored by God, if we have the wit to discern it.  If Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead, it is the most important event in the history of the world.  If He did not, then the story is not more especially interesting than the story of the Three Little Bears.

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 12:01PM #28
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,244

Feb 1, 2010 -- 11:42PM, SeraphimR wrote:


.....


They are much too modern to believe in miracles and Virgin Births and Resurrection and congradulate themselves on how smart they are.  At least atheists, who have an identical worldview in this regard have the decency to not call themselves Christians.


This is why I respect atheists more than Progressive Christians.  You know where you stand when you deal with an atheist.  After shaking hands with a Proggy, you had best count your fingers.



I had an interesting discussion on Discuss Christianity about this very subject.... Do Traditional/Conservative Christians Prefer Atheists to Liberal/Progressive Christians...


Those that responded pretty much agreed with your assessment.  My take away is that because conservative types aren't comfortable with what they perceive as ambiguities or uncertainty, they can't handle fellow adherents who DON'T profess belief in the inerrency of  holy writ. Other participants implied they looked upon progressives as traitors, so of course the contempt runs more deeply.


Gotta say, however.... this admiration is not necessarily mutual. While fundie theists may prefer my company because I'm an atheist, I don't really reciprocate such. I'd much rather discuss with a progressive of any religion than a fundie, because I have much more common ground with progressives.


Your welcome. Wink

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 12:31PM #29
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,361

SeraphimR:  But I've never seen a Progressive Christian criticize a New Atheist.
New Atheist?  What does that mean?


Anyway, I've rolled my eyes on two of "atheists" who spam up boards with countless "and theists suck because ..."-type threads.  I'm not 100% happy with what atheists have to say ... or I'd be atheist, right?


They are much too modern to believe in miracles and Virgin Births and Resurrection and congradulate themselves on how smart they are.
I don't pat myself on the back, though you seem to be doing just fine patting yourself on the back.


At least atheists, who have an identical worldview in this regard have the decency to not call themselves Christians.
What's funny is when atheists use fundamentalist's definitions of Christianity because they're easy targets for mocking, yet seem to forget intentionally that there are more rational definitions of Christianity.


*reads further through the posts*  Oh, you're Orthodox.  Ah, well.  Still, I guess it's better to have oversimplified definitions than actually have to resolve theological issues, huh?


Ralph.m:  challenges from science like the Theory of Evolution
I can only speak for myself, of course, but it's not a challenge.  I'm a theistic evolutionist.  It was a simple matter to see that evolution is what God used to create.


accepting other religious conceptions of God
I believe that God spoke to everyone according to the historical/cultural needs of the time.


dealing with dilemmas like the Problem of Evil
First of all, God supposedly is in charge of Evil as well, if a reader can break away from the whitewashing done elsewhere in the bible.  Second, "evil" is a label we assign to things we don't like.


adapting to changing social values - gay marriage, for example
I welcome progressing civilization beyond bigotry and selfishness.


popular atheist writers like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. and tagged as the "New Atheists"
Oh ... THAT'S a New Atheist, LOL.


SeraphimR:  So what is the authentic knowledge contained in the myth of the Labors of Hercules?
Reality TV hadn't been invented yet.


It is a place to worship the Christian God.
I'm a little more cynical.  Just feels like a Jesus club, to me. :P


But other myths are just stories, like Jason and the Argonauts.
How do YOU know there was never a historical Jason?

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2010 - 1:16PM #30
bigbear6161
Posts: 4,191

Feb 12, 2010 -- 10:50AM, SeraphimR wrote:


Feb 12, 2010 -- 7:47AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Seraphim,


Diversity does not equal error.  You say nothing in your post.  Orthodoxy (with a small "o" )did not purge error unless you are using the word like Stalin used it.  Orthodoxy became the norm but it does not mean we shouldn't go back and rediscover what such folks were getting at before they were censored by the Catholic powers that be.  Especially so when our current world view does not permit us to accept orthodox formulations.  Dave




Do you think we should teach diversity in Biology class?  I could probably come up with five or six different explanations for the origin of species.


If your current worldview does not permit you to accept orthodox formulations the fault, dear sir lies not in the formulations but in your worldview.  But I am happy if you want to nurture your worldview.  Just do so in organizations separate from the Church.  Why should we subsidize the activities of people who wish to subvert our worldview?





If you think biological theories are as weakly supported as orthodox theological propositions then you are too far gone already.  Biological theories are strongly supported and not only that, they change to admit new learning.  Your theological positions are frozen and resist new learning.  And by the way, it is not my world view, it is our worldview, yourself included as you are a product of the 20th & 21st centuries just as I am.  Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook