darby

I think it's safe to say that this forum is at best a dialogue, not a debate forum. When people truly begin to debate ideas here, IMO, people get offended. I think that's probably why people have peeled away. It's certainly why I have not posted in months and now only occasionally check in. Des, as to why a conservative might check the site out....I won't speak for everyone, but I originally came after reading some stuff from guys like Tony Campolo/Brian Mclaren, some of which I agreed with, and guys like Spong, who I definitely did not agree with. I came trying to see where there might be some agreement, and where there would not. Certainly not to convert or be converted. I'm certainly not scared of the progressive movement....just perhaps trying to understand it. Although it has been neat on those few occasions where a few of us have found agreement. I can certainly sympathize with Des regarding a debate when both sides are firmly entrenched and firmly opposed...at some point, it leads to "what's the use?" One thing I don't understand, and never have, is the idea of getting so offended or wounded at someone else's IDEAS. It seems like that happens alot here. I just got off the phone with a Muslim aquaintance of mine who helps me with some remodelling. He and I have had some deep theological discussions. I think he has missed it,and is wrong. Likewise, he definitely thinks that I, by believing Jesus is the son of God (and God himself), have missed it and am wrong. And he tells me this. Where's the foul? I'm not angry with him. He hasn't wounded me or "disrespected" or abused me. His belief that he has the answer, or "the way", and that I'm not on it doesn't affect me one bit. At the end of one of our spiritual discussions, we part amicably, and are none the worse for it. And both still leave feeling we're right and the other is wrong. Enough for now...hope everyone has a good weekend.

Flow and MOW-- Are you two unwilling to acknowledge the condesension and personal aspect of OA's response? Ideology aside, DCJ presents some arguments on a DEBATE site, and OA responds to that post with points of her own AND gets personal. No 2 ways about it. And the question is why? Why not just refute the argument, as both are participating on a DEBATE site. Is it only because you agree with her ideologically (and certainly disagree with DCJ) that you won't acknowledge this?

Haven't checked in for awhile, or posted for even longer. But felt like I had to.... Alethia--what an even tempered response. Not surprised, though. James--pay attention--you might learn something. Starting off a post with "let's pick a fight" is immature.

Flow- This statement surprises me a little. I could have sworn that a few months ago in one topic or another many on the board said the exact opposite. I thought (could be wrong) that most said they preferred Matthew or Mark, but specifically not John. I would assume many here would have trouble with most of chapter 3, which ends, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." There are many other such statements throughtout this entire book (John 14:6--I am the way...) that I would think might cause this gospel to be the Least appealing to many here. Also, at the time, I think many pointed out that Jesus seems to refer to Himself as equal to God more in this gospel than the others. Just curious about this, and FWIW, fow, I love this gospel as well.

Des_ Have a great birthday! hope it's special!

Des- I know you might not agree with her politics, but do you really believe "black and charming" are the sum of Rice's qualifications? Google her name and qualifications....quite a resume. I don't think you meant it that way, but it seems the left is sometimes condescending to a woman or minority if they serve in a conservative administration...and specifically, I think this has been done in her case.

Don't really know...I'll need to go back and see what they mean (the importance of words, ya know!) For instance, if one means "fundamentalist" like I think someone like Beach means, i.e., hateful, bigoted, non-caring, holier than thou, etc,. then a resounding NO. If, OTOH, one means taking scripture very seriously, as one thinks it was intended (fact for fact, miracle for miracle, parable for parable, etc), and thinks the church should hold fast to the Bible for guidance, then I can answer yes.

Alethia- I reluctantly took this, after being duly scolded. Like the rest of you, I've got problems with this type of test. I know what the test maker thinks he will figure out about me by my answer to a particular question, when I know that's not what I mean. I found myself wanting to qualify over half of the questions. That said, here are the results: Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79% Neo orthodox 75% Fundamentalist 71% Reformed Evangelical 61% Emergent/Postmodern 50% Charismatic/Pentecostal 50% Classical Liberal 46% Roman Catholic 25% Modern Liberal 14% On a side note, when I took the Myers-Briggs test a few years ago, I ended up towards the middle in several categories. The test giver said that can be an indication that you are answering some questions as you want to think of yourself...not as you really are. Anyone else heard that?

Fred- Bingo! Once again, not an either/or situation.

OA- I wasn't trying to slam...just disagree. Your comment was in response to mine about wondering about different people's views on the board. BTW, hypocrisy is believing one thing, telling others to do that thing, and then doing the opposite yourself. It's not believing, and then acting out of that belief. Just making the point that I think that strong, deeply held beliefs can (and should) cause us to act our our faith....to be "doers of the word, not only hearers." Thanks des...have a great Christmas! We are cleaning up after a Christmas with a 6yr old, 5 yr old, and 1yr old. Help!!!!

What people believe usually has a great deal to do with what and why they do or don't do.

NO.... I meant in both of your cases! Basically, those I have asked, as opposed to the others on the board. After your answer, along with your many other postings, I feel like I have a pretty good view of your beliefs and views. BTW, I realize when I ask that on this board, some don't want to be pinned down to certain positions, etc. It's just hard to know someone, or where they are coming from, if you don't know at least a little about some of their core beliefs.

Fred- Thanks. The link to your earlier post certainly clears alot of things up...not sure how I missed that. I would respond to that thread, but you probably know what my responses would be. You are correct about our key disagreement. It's interesting, however, that we are both "more solidly rooted in a belief structure than I've ever been in my life." Thanks for sharing. As my wife peers over my shoulder sometimes and asks, "now, what does that person (Fred, Alethia, etc.) believe?", I often don't know how to respond. Now I do, at least in your case.

Fred- Just curious....as I asked Alethia last week, as of today, can you explain "where you are?"...with this whole God/Christian thing. I know that can be a huge question...and a very poorly worded one. I'm not looking for your 10 point doctrinal statement, or any set of labels, necessarily. I know that alot of your thoughts are still developing, as well, so I'm not looking for a bunch of absolutes. Just curious because you're obviously very well read, have been in several groups/denominations if I remember well , and know alot about philosophy, religion, went to seminary, etc. Have you come to any personal conclusions? Do you find yourself closer to answers, or further away? And I realize in asking the question, that for many here, concrete answers aren't the goal anyway. I realize, again, as I look at this, how poorly I'm asking this question. I'm just always curious, after all the talk of fractals, right/left, responsibility, fate, etc., etc., do people have a basic set of core beliefs that drive them, sustain them, prod them, etc.

I'm guessing this isn't going to convince darby though.

Alethia- Thanks for your story. Most people say "not having something to wear" and "hypocrisy" are the main reasons they don't go to church. We can say all kind of great things, but people watch what we DO....always. Or like the famous quote, "preach the gospel continuously, and then open your mouth occasionally when you need to." I'm glad you're giving Jesus a second chance. Of course, He wasn't the one who let you down in the first place....it was the rest of us.

Cynthia- Your response about "I did X because he did Y" made me laugh. With a five and six year old (both boys, 8 mos. apart), I hear responses like that too often! That book "Everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten" or whatever the title is really nailed it. We don't accept that answer from our kindergartners, and we shouldn't accept it from each other. Alethia- Just curious...share only if you're comfortable....what made you "angry at Christianity?" Certain beliefs....other Christians....bad leaders...?? I'm always interested to see what turned people off, hurt them, etc. in Christianity or the church. Another question (being nosy today)...you said "now I am where I am." Where is that? I know from many of your other posts that many of your beliefs are evolving. But, after your journey around the world (spriritually), how would you describe "where you are?" Again, just curious.

I wanted to start a new topic about responsibility. I didn't continue the old topic since we were way off it's intent, I didn't want to add fuel to the fire, and Fred had summed up my intent anyway. Somehow, the message I was trying to convey got twisted into me absolving people who hate and abuse of their responsibility, and making the victims responsible. Even of sexual abuse. Where in the heck did that come from?? Certainly we're all responsible to God for OUR hate, abuse and anger...that's exactly the point I was trying to make. What I DON'T believe is that a past wrong committed against me gives me license to treat other people badly, and I'm sure none of you do either. It might be a REASON I'd be tempted to act out in anger, but not an excuse. An atheist might see me in a neighborhood ministering to people, preaching the gospel, and taunt me, call me "Jesus Freak," etc. That doesn't justify me hating the next atheist I run into. I'm responsible to God for my interaction with the people I run into, regardless of my experiences. It's similar to something Mother Teresa said about not wanting to forgive someone for something they had done to us. Basically, paraphrasing, she said, "When we don't want to forgive someone, we're focusing on the person. But it was never really about the person...It was about us and God. The call to forgive came from Him." I think in society we also need to clarify what "hate" means. You might say, "I've studied history, philosophy, all the world religions, and I have come to the conclusion 'A' is true."To which I might say, "Sorry, friend, you're wrong...'B' is what's true....and 'B' and 'A' can't both be true." That is not HATE....that's disagreement. It becomes hate possibly when I won't serve you at my restaurant, or let you ride in my taxi, or taunt your kids, or damage your property, or say you can't gather together to teach 'A'. And we minimize TRUE hate when we say disagreement, even strong disagreement, equals hate. Now, I'll step off my soapbox, and get to work. Interested to read your comments.

Fred- My point was that at the very top of Beach's post, I asked myself, "where is this going?" And I bet at the time(if I were a betting man), that at some point in the post, conservatives would be the cause of the problems she was lamenting. And I was right. It was just too predictable. Conservatives can't be responsible for all the problems on the extreme right AND the extreme left.......

I guess I would simply hold these adults accountable for their anger and bitter and negative feelings...rather than blaming some other group. I'm a big proponent of people taking responsibility for their actions.

I KNEW it had to be the Christian fundamentalists' fault in the end!!

Amen. I do not understand why churches feel the need to bend over backwards to look like "the world" and make people feel so comfortable. What we end up with is a bunch of comfortable Christians, who are always looking to have THEIR needs catered to. The church ought to offer something different than what people can get at the local mall. We ought to be "strange" to a world caught up in consumption, materialism, greed, etc. All that to say, I am all for the church being RELEVANT to the culture they are trying to minister in. Dress styles, music styles, etc. change, and the church can too.

On that, Fred, I hope we can ALL find agreement! This is a major contrast to what we hear in the world. There we hear "get all you can," "You're wonderful," "Do it if it feels good to you," "You just need to love yourself more," etc. I don't think what we all need is MORE self-love, but less. Or perhaps just more love and concern for others way above ourselves. Not that we need to hate ourselves...but to truly see where we fall short of the standard set by a Holy God. It's for that reason I've always been impressed with David in the Bible. Obviously a very flawed man...constantly struggling with lust, committing murder, etc. And yet, it is evident that he was DEEPLY repentant over his sin, crying out to God and thanking God for his mercy. He (much like you, above) truly understood his position in view of a Holy God. The bible says that God has yet to deny a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I guess David's humility and brokenness is why the bible says he was a man after God's heart. And man, it IS a battle sometimes, isn't it?!

Fred, I think you've summed up perhaps THE dividing point between progressives and those more conservative. There are many times on this board where I'm following a discussion, commenting, and then I get to a point where I realize the debate can't really go any further. It would serve no purpose, because we're debating from different perspectives. The old saw about "where you go to find your answer determines what answer you come up with" (I'm paraphrasing) is absolutely true, I believe.