What Is Your Theological Worldview?

[jerryb]

The whole reason I posted the quiz is because it offered options (unlike beliefnet quizes) such as "Emergent," "Neo-Orthodox," "Classic Liberal," and "Modern Liberal." Most other tests tell you if you are Catholic or Protestant and that you should attend a UU church. I just thought it was nice to find a test that used categories that are different, for a change.

 

Beliefnets "belief-o-matic" is perhaps more detailed, but it needs to be updated. There are options out there, for mystically inclined, free-thinking individuals besides the UU church. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

 

Well friends....guess I'm really a mixed up guy. I scored 100% Classic Liberal,and 100% Emergent/Post modern. Oh well,it was fun anyway. Maybe now that you know my mixed-up spiritual status, you'll continue to be patient with my rantings. Thanks for allowing me to be a part of this awesome board.

 

 

 

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

[des]

Ok, today was my day to a. take quizes and b. find out where all my dead packages and strange bills came from or went. :-)

 

Anyway,

Emergent/Postmodern 93%

 

Modern Liberal 75%

 

Classical Liberal 71%

 

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 46%

 

 

Charismatic/Pentecostal 46%

 

Roman Catholic 39%

 

 

Neo orthodox 36%

 

 

Reformed Evangelical 18%

 

 

Fundamentalist 4%

 

 

I didn't know what to make of some of the questions and so just put them in the middle. Either I thought they were irrelevant or I thought they were too absurd to answer or I just didn't know what to make of them. :-)

Might explain some of the fundie, charismatic, etc.

 

Or it is as my old pastor said, we have more in common than we'll ever have in conflict. Amen, amen. ;-)

You know if I went to any Christian service (except perhaps some Pentacostal type with falling all over and speaking in tongues) or some megachurch, I'd prob. find more to agree with than disagree with-- least I have found that to be the case mostly. You hang around longer is when you find out what you really would/wouldn't agree with, I think. Went to mom's Presby of America (sure not real liberal) and found as I said more I was familar and comfortable with-- than what I wasn't. Funny thing, mom says some funny things since she has dementia. She said, "you sang all the hymns!" Of course I did. See I had the music and words! :-) Even so, most of the wording was pretty much the same ('cept UCC does more of the inclusive language thing).

 

 

--des

[FredP]

I don;t think it fair to lable a person a Fundamenbtal christian simply because they believe in mircles of the resurrection...and thus place such a believer on the same level as a bigot. Maybe start a new thread on this very subject?

I'm not sure whether it merits a new thread (don't let me stop you though) -- but yes, it's a very important point! I made a comment sometime back about what your beliefs are being a different issue than how you hold them. That's essentially what you're talking about here.

 

Let me go out on a limb and take this thought a step further. What about a person who has honestly searched the scriptures and her heart, and genuinely comes to the belief -- not out of superiority, or hatred, or bigotry, but out of prayerful consideration -- that pastoral leadership is not a viable option for women? I'm not saying I fall into this category -- I don't, in fact -- but would you agree that there is a big difference between a person like this, and the stereotypical, misogynistic, "Shut up, woman, and bring me my dinner" type of chauvinist pig? Like I said, I'm not asking you to agree with the belief, but to expand your horizons and perhaps appreciate that a person could hold this belief without being a hateful bigot. I know that this is a very hot-button issue for you, so I'm not saying it won't bring up strong feelings.

 

Incidentally, the benefit of being able to appreciate that such a person could genuinely, responsibly, hold this belief, is that you can sensibly argue with them about the actual theological issue, without detouring into flaming and name-calling -- and probably have a better chance of actually convincing them that you're right! And if not... well, you save yourself the ulcer and lockjaw. Either way it's a win.

 

Just a thought...

[des]

Well let me also say that taking it from the theoretical to the actual, that actual people who really believe in more evangelical/conservative views are not necessarily bigots either. I think that bigotry is an equal opportunity employer if you get my drift, and doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, national origin, and actual theological views. I also think there are conservatives that will shove religion down throats and those who wouldn't dream of it. (The Great Commission says nothing about shoving. :-))

Otoh, there are liberal/ progressives who are annoying and insensitive in spreading their own views. Don't believe that? Look at aspects of any of the women's, gay rights, conservation, etc. movements. There are also pushy elements in some of these.

 

And yes, I agree that conservatives can take a "women not pastors" or "homosexuality is sin"-- no, I don't AGREE with those views, but they can take them from an honest position

of really feeling that is what the Bible says. Do I think it is a harder to be neighborly and caring and welcoming to homosexual people, say, with that view? Yes I do. But I have read all sorts of things lately that indicate that some in the conservative movement are quite aware of this discrepancy.

 

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

Fred:

 

"Let me go out on a limb and take this thought a step further. What about a person who has honestly searched the scriptures and her heart, and genuinely comes to the belief -- not out of superiority, or hatred, or bigotry, but out of prayerful consideration -- that pastoral leadership is not a viable option for women?"

 

But how can we KNOW it was DONe prayfully or scripturally and NOT in bigotry? What if..they truely DO pray and DO search the Scriptures...but still see in there what they want and this want may not honor the Golden Rule? For example, let's replace this thing of women and make it Jews or Buddhists. What if a consevrative Christian honestly DOES pray AND research Scriptures but says with conviction that he SEES and has PROOF that God REJECTED the Jews? Or Belives that Gaundi IS going to hell? What do YOU feel about this? Now is this a mere sincere conviction or is it bigotry? What if an elder in my mom's JW church says with conviction that he belives ALL Non-JW's will not get into paradsie? Is this a sincere conviction? What if he says he prays on this issue and researches the Bible? He he a bigot? Here are '3' examples to examine:

 

1. A Evangelical Protestant says he belives Gaundi's going to hell cause he was not a Christian

 

2. A Catholic claims that the Catholic church was THEE church upon which was set upon Peter, whom in turn the Catholic says all popes come from

 

3. A Jehovah's Witness elder says he belives that all non-JW's will be in paraside

 

4. A Seventh-Day Adventists claims ALL that worships on Sunday instead of Saturday are NOT true Christians.

 

Now, with each of these individuals and their statements, how would you define each? Is each four merely stating a sincere conviction? Or are the discribing bigotry? Furthermore, how would EACH ONE OF US Progressive Christians on here view "EACH" and "EVERY" four? Would be be more generous in our views towards one or more and yet not others? And if so, why?

 

What would 'I' think or each of these? I wouldsay that EACH of these indiviauls regardless of faith group backgound, TRUELY belives that his or her conviction is both based on Scripture and prayerful conclusion and that EACH truely belives this..but still, as an obsevor their statements appears egocentric.

 

 

I'm not saying I fall into this category -- I don't, in fact -- but would you agree that there is a big difference between a person like this, and the stereotypical, misogynistic, "Shut up, woman, and bring me my dinner" type of chauvinist pig? Like I said, I'm not asking you to agree with the belief, but to expand your horizons and perhaps appreciate that a person could hold this belief without being a hateful bigot. I know that this is a very hot-button issue for you, so I'm not saying it won't bring up strong feelings.

 

Incidentally, the benefit of being able to appreciate that such a person could genuinely, responsibly, hold this belief, is that you can sensibly argue with them about the actual theological issue, without detouring into flaming and name-calling -- and probably have a better chance of actually convincing them that you're right! And if not... well, you save yourself the ulcer and lockjaw. Either way it's a win.

 

Just a thought...

 

 

des Yesterday, 12:56 PM Post #29

 

 

 

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 812

Joined: 8-January 05

From: New Mexico

Member No.: 273

 

 

 

Well let me also say that taking it from the theoretical to the actual, that actual people who really believe in more evangelical/conservative views are not necessarily bigots either. I think that bigotry is an equal opportunity employer if you get my drift, and doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, national origin, and actual theological views. I also think there are conservatives that will shove religion down throats and those who wouldn't dream of it. (The Great Commission says nothing about shoving. :-))

Otoh, there are liberal/ progressives who are annoying and insensitive in spreading their own views. Don't believe that? Look at aspects of any of the women's, gay rights, conservation, etc. movements. There are also pushy elements in some of these.

 

And yes, I agree that conservatives can take a "women not pastors" or "homosexuality is sin"-- no, I don't AGREE with those views, but they can take them from an honest position

of really feeling that is what the Bible says. Do I think it is a harder to be neighborly and caring and welcoming to homosexual people, say, with that view? Yes I do. But I have read all sorts of things lately that indicate that some in the conservative movement are quite aware of this discrepancy.

[BeachOfEden]

"Incidentally, the benefit of being able to appreciate that such a person could genuinely, responsibly, hold this belief, is that you can sensibly argue with them about the actual theological issue, without detouring into flaming and name-calling -- and probably have a better chance of actually convincing them that you're right! And if not... well, you save yourself the ulcer and lockjaw."

 

Well, Fred, I honestly belive that the JW that my mom is devote to, will NEVER EVER altered or change it's view on women and NEVER let them be pastors/elder/preists....like many of these other fundamental faiths we speak of here.

 

Dispite my strong DISagreemnts with JW's on this issue (women's equality IN the church) as well as their "members-ONLY" salvation theory...(thee '2' main DISagreements I have against all the other fundie religions we have all spoken of here...)

 

I NEVER tried to write to the JW's or confront them face to face and try and make them see my views on this. I don;t see all of this as being a matter of humans MAKING other humans SEE something true..rather it's about God MAKING someone see something..and that's between them and God.

 

If Jerry Felwell wants to preach that these Huricanes all occured because we all refused to become Southern Baptists (or as he would pefer to refer to them as "THE REAL Christians...) Then that's between him and God. Now, I may indeed think Felwell is a real ass...but No human can expect to write to Jerry Felwell and tell him that he is a self-righteous pharisee ass and get anywhere with a person like this..No human change him.

 

I neither feel it is my desire not job to "try and show JW's or any other fundie group that they are wrong. Here? yes, we can speak of it..but I don;t go over to "THEIR" sites. Rather, what my DESIRe and HOPE is..is that I desire and wish that the JW's and all other fundies would simply NOT proceed to tell me their views on all this..especially when I did not ask them and moreover, i make it known to them I am NOT interested. All you Progs here, know the drill, a fundie tries to ask you why you don;t concure with their church and when you say something, like, "I don;t agree with your views on not allowing women be pastors or elders..._" then they proceed to preach at you and tell you their whole view..which NEITHER ASKED for NOR WANT.

 

I hate it when an over-zealous JW or fundie of ANY type tell me that "I" don;t understand the Bible teachings on these issues and proceeds to tell me their whole hoop-la by yanking scriptures out here and there about why they don;t allow women to be preachers. I already KNOW ALL this and YEAH, I STILL DISagree with 'their' fundamental interpretations on the issue....

 

This is like if you were an Amillennialist and a SB goes, "Oh well, obviously you don;t understand the Bible and how to read it properly. Now, sit down here and "I" will proceed to show you how and where the 'RAPTURE" is real and how my church teaches this.-"

 

Now, the questions would be..... Do you ASK for this? Did you give any indication that you WANTED to hear their view? And forth, do they care that you don't want to hear this? Are they even aware that you already researched ALL this, and yes, you DID STILL come to this conclusion?

 

It is most likely a given that each and everyone of us Progs wish and would surely like our perents, friends,ect to switch from being fundamentalists christians TO becoming Progressive ones....but NOT because they have some grand fear that they shall face eternall demantion or the second eternal death if they don;t. rather, because simply by so doing we figure the friction between us and them and basically everyone NOT in 'their' church would end. That we know that 'if' they become Progressive then they'd be more more likey to stop harassing their their gay children and grandchildren, that they stop preaching sexism in the name of the Bible to women, that they stop using fear threats of the end of the world to try and bring people to church and keep them in there and that they'd stop fearing that all their neighboring Hindus and Buddhists were going to hell.

[AletheiaRivers]

I'm curious Beach, WHERE are you hanging out that you are getting constantly told that your views are wrong?

 

You say that you don't go to "their" sites, so I'm wondering who is giving you so much flack?

 

Aletheia

[BeachOfEden]

Well, for one, merely if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

For example...

 

Example#1. the day before Christmas, 2004 I happen to stop at a certain health food store. After shopping, i come out and what do you know, there is 5 of my mom's JW friends, and one of the more passive aggressive of the gals, come up to me and starts asking if I would like her to have her re-enter me back in their fold.

 

Example #2. One time I am on here and I am talking to either you or des about how how certain fundi groups bann women from being elders/pastors....when someone who is devote Catholic horns in on our conversation and proceeds to explain to US HOW and WHY the Catholic Church fathers do not allow women to be priests.

 

Now, let us examine example#1. Here I am minding my own buiness, shopping for food when a handful of JW's happen upon me when this one JW gal starts trying to recruite me back into their fold. Question: Did 'I" ask her to do this? Did I give her ANY indication that I 'wanted' to be recruite back? And again, perhaps more importantly, does this women really CARE what "I" want or do NOT want? From my point of view, this is what i call being invasive.

 

Now, let us move on to examine example#2. I and either you or Des are having a discussion being Progs and we are discussing fundi churches policies of banning women from being spiritual leaders...when all a sudden a fundamental Catholic jumps in the conversation and proceeds to tell us why the Church Fathers of the Catholic church don;t allow women to be spiritual leaders. Here again, as with the above example, did either YOU, I or Des ASK this person or requests THEM to tell us all this? Was there ANYTHING that lead this person to conclude that ANY OF US 'WANTED' his view or take on this? And thirdly, again, perhaps more importantly, did this person really CARE what the rest of US WANTED? Again, I see this as this person being invasive.

Edited December 29, 2005 by BeachOfEden

[BeachOfEden]

..So that just the point, Ath, YOu DON'T HAVE to Go to 'THEIR' sites....causes sooner or later a fundamentalists will ALWAYS come to OURs.

 

Why? Because, as fundamentalists, they are on a mission....to educate ( in 'their' opinion) all of us lead-astray heathens liberals back to the straight & narrow (minded) path. What fuels this passionate mission? Ego? Fear? Yes, a little of both. Ego because of the "Members-ONLY" salvation mentality that they have come to embrace. Fear because of the "Left Behind"/and/or Hellfire/and/or End of the World" threats their fundamental church teaches..which in turn is DIRECTLY conected to their "members-ONLY" salvation belief system.

 

Question: How come Progressives do NOT go SEEK fundamentalists out and try to PREACH to THEM? How come this does NOT seem to be a part of OUR mission? As far as Ego goes...Progs have NO "Memebers-ONLY' salvation theory. As far a Fear goes...Progs have NO "Left Behind" nor "hellfire" no "End of the World" threats being preached from our pulpits weekly so as to ad fuel behind any "mebers-ONLY" salvation theory.

[des]

I think you pretty much answered the question. I was watching something (History channel has a whole week of Apoc. related material-- pretty good stuff), anyway a liberal guy is talking and comparing how evangelical/fundie stuff (I realize they aren't quite the same) goes on about the end coming and so forth and the liberals deal with bills getting passed in congress to aid certain groups-- and that's why liberalism just isn't so "sexy" and popular. I think he has a pt. I am very happy to tell people re: my views in a nonconfrontational situation. But I don't think we offer a very compelling rationale like that. Hey you will go to heaven, doesn't matter, prob. isn't a real physical heaven and hell anyway. This just isn't as compellign as a threat. I think the UCC church did a very nice job of showing a rationale of another sort with their "bouncer ads".

 

I also have no reason to "convert" a fundie. I feel for one thing that we are in some ways neurochemically different. (Yes, I am serious.) I really liked what Borg had to say about "if that's what floats your boat"-- but I'm here to describe something else.

 

Yes, I agree they can come on *very* strong. My sister has taken lots of courses and she is much more subtle these days.

 

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

Thus, we should always ask the question, what is the fuel behind one's zeal to to and convert someone?

[Cynthia]

Thus, we should always ask the question, what is the fuel behind one's zeal to to and convert someone?

 

 

Why??? The answer is generally fear - in this case, often linked with compassion. It's not like they're offering chocolate... just smile and move on.

[BeachOfEden]

Beach: Thus, we should always ask the question, what is the fuel behind one's zeal to to and convert someone?

 

 

Cynth:

 

Why??? The answer is generally fear - in this case, often linked with compassion.

 

Beach:I Disagree. As Religious Addiction 12 Step author Leo Booth points out..that there IS '2' different 'kinds' of FEAR. Healthy Verses UnHealthy..and this also goes from the religious relm. UNhealthy morbid religious FEAR can drive religious zealosts to extreme unhealthy behaviors. Just as extreme, over-the-top zeal for reward can drive religious zealouts to unhealthy behaviors..Hummm.perhaps this also would make an enteresting topic, "Healthy Verses unHelathy Fear."