Pc & Fundamentalism Dialogue

[des]

Well I'll tell you steve that in the heat of all the proselitizing I was getting from my sister (Campus Crusade), I would not esp. like to do "interfaith" with anybody, and most esp. a fundamentalist. I just got so much. So I am thinking that things might be quite similar for her at this stage. I totally understand that.

 

We haven't had too many examples of this on the board but there have been a few. I am usually annoyed if a topic is "hijacked", which has happened, imo. So just because I don't exactly agree on this, I still think there is a point on it. But I think it would sort of limit discussion. I also would not want a separate Fundie/ Progressive debate forum, as I think it draws out just the very kind of discussions you might be most worried about. For the most part, the 3 conservatives (not all fundies to be sure), have remained polite, and not tried to convert us. BUT if you have a "interfaith" group, you are going to draw in people who's sole (soul?) mission in life is to convert. I might want to find commonalities, but some people might come in showing me the error of my ways.

 

But I think just go use the ignore option and you can bleep out anybody, even some Progressives if you want :-). I also think walking (or let's say ignoring a whole thread or even the forum for a few days makes sense sometimes). I haven't done it here, but I got into a huge argument on another forum that got very personally nasty (much worse and personal than anything here), for ex. one member said that everythign I said was a bunch of b.s. So FINALLY I just left it for a no. of weeks, maybe a month or two. On another forum, there is a guy that posts sort of similar conspiracy theories. And I have decided for my sanity just not to read his posts, for the most part. I just end up angry. So I think there is quite a place for ignoring, walking away (or not reading), etc. It is like walking away from a fight and it is a good thing to do.

 

 

--des

[Guest admin]

Well I'll tell you steve that in the heat of all the proselitizing I was getting from my sister (Campus Crusade), I would not esp. like to do "interfaith" with anybody...

 

We haven't had too many examples of this on the board but there have been a few. I am usually annoyed if a topic is "hijacked", which has happened, imo.

 

NOTE TO EVERYONE:

If you ever feel that a person is being disrespectful or is "hijacking" a conversation, please hit the "report" button at the bottom of the post immediately! I get an immediate email and I can look it over. Sometimes all it takes is a quick email from me to the poster...

[BeachOfEden]

So if there is to be no conservative/Progressive forum then is the answer that simply the Debate board would act as this then? If so, that is..that the conservatives CAn and are welcomed to go on the Debate board and NOT this regular one..then I will simply stay on THIS forum and choose never to go on the Debate forum then.

[des]

>>We haven't had too many examples of this on the board but there have been a few. I am usually annoyed if a topic is "hijacked", which has happened, imo.

 

 

NOTE TO EVERYONE:

If you ever feel that a person is being disrespectful or is "hijacking" a conversation, please hit the "report" button at the bottom of the post immediately! I get an immediate email and I can look it over. Sometimes all it takes is a quick email from me to the poster...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I perhaps exagerated on "hijacked". I can recall a few, of what I considered interesting discussions, that were more or less taken over as being a conservative/ progressive debate vs whatever it was we were talking about.

 

I have rarely felt that anybody was going over the rules or something like that.

If I'm annoyed by something or someone that isn't quite the same as saying they are out of line. :-)

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

Are non-Progressives to post on the debate baord only,then? if so, that they must aat least stick to one board and NOT this one..then I would settle for that.

[steve]

Beach, I know that it is very hard to understand others at times, but I would really like to understand the root cause of why you feel we need a board just for ‘conservatives’. How big of a problem is this for ‘non-progressives’ to be posting on any of the boards? What are they doing that is so awful that we can’t handle?

 

Again, I want to be sure that we are clear on this, who is going to decide who is a progressive and who is not? I have no problem with there being rules in place, for the benefit of creating a place of honest discussion, but I do have a problem with rules that ban certain views. Who’s view is the right one on here? What happens when one of us ‘progressives’ offends someone and now we are considered to be a ‘conservative’?

 

There has to be a way that we can all get a long. With a group of smart and creative people like the folks on this message board, there has to be something that we can come up with that will include all.

 

Remember what the Fundamentalist want: to separate. Their desire is to separate themselves from the ‘godless world’ so that they wont be tainted. But they also don’t want to be challenged. Lets not become fundamentalist Progressives.

[peacemover]

What about this..what if the debate forum name was changed to "Progressive& Conservative Dialog"?

 

That way those from each camp could discusss differing view points freely and no one from either side is taken off gaurd as to what type of debate or topic type forum it is? The title, "Conservative" is not offensive as "Fundamental" would be..and those from the Progressive AND Conservative camps who enjoy a good challenge to their viewpoints could enjoy innerfaith dialog. It is a more precise discription of what the "debate" is about and both Progressives AND Conservatives could BOTH feel equally welcomed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting observation. Actually, fundamentalism, as I understand the term could be either liberal or conservative- it does not characterize the specific beliefs themselves, but rather how those beliefs are interpreted and how receptive the person is to other views.

 

 

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m

Function: noun

 

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

 

If you capitalize the F, then that could refer to the literalist movement that became popular in the early 20th century...

 

but aside from that difference, I would like to see more open dialogue among people with diverse views...

 

Peace,

 

John

[BeachOfEden]

"Beach, I know that it is very hard to understand others at times, but I would really like to understand the root cause of why you feel we need a board just for ‘conservatives’. How big of a problem is this for ‘non-progressives’ to be posting on any of the boards? What are they doing that is so awful that we can’t handle"

 

I simply do not enjoy or find it helpful or inspiring to talk with or listening to the view points from individuals who's faith is NOT Progressive in nature. I do not like or find it helpful to hear a conservative Catholic or Protestant give explainations to why their church interpretates the Bible in a sexist way. I do not care to hear their interpretations on why they think the Bible tells them that they are saved and everyone else is not and things of this sort

 

"Again, I want to be sure that we are clear on this, who is going to decide who is a progressive and who is not"

 

Each individual simply reads and affirms the basic 8 points. If they can't simply do this..then they should not be here...because obviously they are not agreemtn with this site's objective and purpose.

 

" I have no problem with there being rules in place, for the benefit of creating a place of honest discussion, but I do have a problem with rules that ban certain views."

 

Then you would positvely a problem with Fundamental and Conservative forums. That is why this forum should be the alternative to that.

 

"Who’s view is the right one on here?"

 

Again, it's all about agreeing to the basic 8 points.

 

"What happens when one of us ‘progressives’ offends someone and now we are considered to be a ‘conservative’?"

 

Would a Progressive go against ANY of these 8 points? If they DID how could they be Progressive?

 

"Remember what the Fundamentalist want: to separate. Their desire is to separate themselves from the ‘godless world’ so that they wont be tainted. But they also don’t want to be challenged. Lets not become fundamentalist Progressives. "

 

Do YOU WANT to innerfaith with people who DON'T WANT YOU? Do you want to innerfaith with people who would view your 'progressive' views as "NOT Truely christian"? Do YOU WANT to be told you are going to hell if you do not dare agree with 'their' interpretations of Scriptures?That is the question that you and every Progressive Christian here should seriously be asking themselves....

 

I myself can answer this question without hesitation with a postive NO. Like Des, who has had to endure the Jerry Felwell ways of her fundamental Campus Crusade For Christ an Ex-Christian Science family member..I have also been there and done that and no, 'I' personally don't care to go there again. But 'I' am NOT the majority and if for some reason the majority here decide they shall like and WANT conservatives here to freely dialog on EVERY board here..then most likely that what will happen.

[Cynthia]

The thing I like about this board is the level of respect everyone is shown. This seems consistent with Jesus' message, imo. This topic seems to be the only exception I recall... I hope that all who are bothered by certain posters will do as Des suggested and just use the ignore feature.

[cunninglily]

"Again, I want to be sure that we are clear on this, who is going to decide who is a progressive and who is not"

 

Each individual simply reads and affirms the basic 8 points. If they can't simply do this..then they should not be here...because obviously they are not agreemtn with this site's objective and purpose.

 

" I have no problem with there being rules in place, for the benefit of creating a place of honest discussion, but I do have a problem with rules that ban certain views."

 

Then you would positvely a problem with Fundamental and Conservative forums. That is why this forum should be the alternative to that.

 

"Who’s view is the right one on here?"

 

Again, it's all about agreeing to the basic 8 points.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Okay. Let's look at the 8 points again starting with point 4:

 

"By calling ourselves Progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:

 

Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):

 

believers and agnostics,

conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,

women and men,

those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,

those of all races and cultures,

those of all classes and abilities,

those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope"

 

 

Any questions?

 

 

lily

[steve]

‘Each individual simply reads and affirms the basic 8 points. If they can't simply do this..then they should not be here...because obviously they are not agreemtn with this site's objective and purpose.’

 

What this sounds like to me is a reaction to a bad experience with a Fundamentalist group. I have family that are Fundamentalist, my mother and stepfather, and I get along with them while still having to deal with their reaction to my differing faith. There have been times when they have come to my house and, along with my half brothers, have taken Bibles and tried to convince me that they are right and I am wrong.

 

Many people might find this offensive or might not enjoy it, but that is life. While the board does not belong to me or you, it does belong to an organization. That organization can set whatever rules they choose. But, if I were them, I would limit the way I limit others.

 

And finally as for the 8 points: don’t make them into some sort of progressive creed. Just as many are uncomfortable with the classical creeds our the faith, many would also be leery of setting up a new, even if it is progressive, progressive creed. I would also wonder how many on here are in complete compliance with every point on the list. I know I am not in total agreement, and many of the founders of the organization might not fully understand the reasons for a point or might, frankly, disagree with it. Does this mean that they should not be allowed?

 

And as lily said, look at the points again, and read number 4.

[cunninglily]

And finally as for the 8 points: don’t make them into some sort of progressive creed.  Just as many are uncomfortable with the classical creeds our the faith, many would also be leery of setting up a new, even if it is progressive, progressive creed.  I would also wonder how many on here are in complete compliance with every point on the list.  I know I am not in total agreement, and many of the founders of the organization might not fully understand the reasons for a point or might, frankly, disagree with it.  Does this mean that they should not be allowed?

 

And as lily said, look at the points again, and read number 4.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anybody actually interested in discussing the 8 points, one by one, and starting a new forum for that purpose? We could allot an amount of time to each in hopes of inspiring the other members of this forum who we have not heard from, or haven't heard from in some time, to participate. What say you?

 

lily

[AletheiaRivers]

Fred's Thread

 

It did wander "off topic", but I thought I'd bump it anyway.

 

PS - I do think a NEW FORUM would be cool, with sticky threads, each thread dedicated to a different point.

Edited August 11, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

I'm fascinated that this thread is still going on. It's kind of funny that the hottest debate in months is over whether, and how much, to limit debate! Go smell a rose, or hold a newborn baby. Do something awe-inspiring!

[Cynthia]

Here's a sojo mail article written by Brian McLaren that seems to speak to this issue. Looking forward to views :>

 

A bridge far enough?

by Brian McLaren

You've heard the old saying: The hard thing about being a bridge is that you get walked on from both ends. As someone who spends roughly half of my time in the conservative world and half in the liberal (theologically and politically speaking), I suppose I qualify as a kind of bridge person. Unfortunately, my experience confirms the old saying, and I have a few boot marks on my backside to prove it.

 

 

 

The fact is, I don't feel very qualified to write this article. I'm assuming the best person for the job should be well accepted and respected on both sides of the bridge. He or she should feel successful in communicating with both liberals and conservatives, feel comfortable in both red and blue states, be liked by both Hannity and Colmes. Sadly, the more I communicate with one side of the bridge, the more I feel suspect by the other. As a result, I've been invited to stay out of a state of one color, and in spite of my above-average imagination, I can't imagine possibly connecting with Colmes and Geraldo without infuriating Hannity and O'Reilly, or vice versa.

 

 

 

So, if I'm a bridge, I'm a rickety one, a "plan B," I suppose. My basic qualification to write this article is my belief that we as followers of Christ should at least try to talk to everybody we can - and to do so, as the Apostle Peter said, with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). I don't agree with the tone of the conservative author who offers advice on how to talk to a liberal "if you must," suggesting that it's an odious task that one must do while pinching her nose. Nor do I agree with any liberal mirror image who sees all conservatives as equally stinky conversation partners. I have been given no exemption card regarding 1 Corinthians 13, and my calling as a Christian requires me, in the words of Paul, to "become all things to all people."

 

 

 

To those under the law I became like one under the law...so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law...so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel.... - 1 Corinthians 9:20-23

 

 

 

By the way - people often quote that Pauline phrase about becoming all things to all people preceded by you can't. But Paul's assertion was that he must, for the sake of the gospel, no matter how difficult the task was (and it was difficult - resulting in at least one riot in his lifetime!). Paul had what he called "the ministry of reconciliation," and he saw himself as a peace ambassador for Christ.

 

 

 

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view.... All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. - 2 Corinthians 5:14-20

 

 

 

He was called to enter various cultures - Jewish cultures, Gentile cultures - and invite people to be reconciled to God and to one another. Of course, nobody can be everything to everybody at the same time, but you can, Paul implied, cross the bridge on the right side and enter a person's world without judgment, and then go to the left side of the bridge and enter that person's world without judgment as well.

 

 

 

Brian McLaren, founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Spencerville, Maryland, is author, most recently, of The Last Word and the Word After That.

[AletheiaRivers]

I don't agree with the tone of the conservative author who offers advice on how to talk to a liberal "if you must," suggesting that it's an odious task that one must do while pinching her nose. Nor do I agree with any liberal mirror image who sees all conservatives as equally stinky conversation partners. I have been given no exemption card regarding 1 Corinthians 13, and my calling as a Christian requires me, in the words of Paul, to "become all things to all people."

 

Of course, nobody can be everything to everybody at the same time, but you can, Paul implied, cross the bridge on the right side and enter a person's world without judgment, and then go to the left side of the bridge and enter that person's world without judgment as well.

 

Reminds me of your quote from Crafton! Spooky eh?

 

I have gotten very frustrated when I've come across poor "reviews" of Generous Orthodoxy and thought "You didn't even read the book!" or "Did you read the SAME book I did?"

 

He is so awesome! He's trying very hard to bridge the gap, to create dialogue, and he IS getting walked on. I hope he knows how much his work is appreciated and doesn't give up his efforts.

 

Thanks for posting that Cynthia!

Edited August 12, 2005 by AletheiaRivers