AletheiaRivers

Which 3 or 4 people on here "love debating with Conservatives"? There haven't been any debates between conservatives and progressives on this board that I can think of since December 2004 (which is when I signed up) unless you count the conversations that have gone on with Darby, DCJ or James as "debates". I highly doubt that those conversations have served to drive away any of the regular posters here. My comment about inviting fundamentalists to the board was "tongue in cheek" Beach. I haven't done so. I also doubt that anyone else has done so, or I imagine we'd have more conservative posters on this board than just THREE (3) - Darby, DCJ and James. I'd be curious to know who these other posters are that felt intimidated and so have left. I'm not saying that might not be true., but I'd be curious to find out who and why. My guess would be - They left because they have lives outside this forum.

Hi Beach! I have to admit I'm a little confused as to why you feel there is a need for a forum dedicated to debate between non-Progressive Christians and Progressive ones. It's not like there has been any "knock down, drag out" Fundamentalist versus Progressive debating occuring on the board. Come to think of it, I can't think of a TRUE argument happening between a Progressive and a non-Progressive since I signed up last December. I can, however, think of a few arguments occuring between Progressives. I've been half tempted to go trolling on some of the more conservative Christian forums in order to lure a few over here. This board needs more people participating in conversations. As long as the debating is confined to the debate board, I say "The more the merrier".

No she wasn't. She was saying that not responding to a thread about not responding might have sent an ironically appropriate message.

I wondered if this article might start a "women versus men" in the priesthood conversation. Although that part of the article is interesting and has merit, I DID actually post the article because of the "conversion validity" aspect. In restrospect, I should have named the thread something different, but didn't think "Are these Catholic conversions valid?" would be as interesting a title. Oops. It made me wonder how happy and effective these priests are going to be in the long run. The "quadrilateral" approach to faith and spirituality that is the heart of Episcopalianism (and Methodism) just doesn't factor into Catholicism. Can these priests truly embrace ALL that is Catholicism?

When is conversion not conversion? By Joan Chittister, OSB Just when you think that things are quieting down -- at least on one front -- someone sets off a landmine. This time it's a theological one. On July 11, the Church of England voted, 11 years after the ordination of the first Anglican women priests, to begin the legislative process that will now admit women to the episcopacy. Don't for a minute think that the issue is finally resolved. Either for them or for us. Theology is a tricky subject. You have to be careful when you're trying to understand exactly what is being said -- or how. It has an eel-like quality to it. It slips and slides. It changes its mind a lot more than the tone of its teachings imply. It can get all entwined in history -- called tradition -- and interpretation -- often called revelation. If you're Roman Catholic, you're good at this: As in the shift from usury, which used to be a sin, to the Vatican Bank. Or the shift from the selling of plenary indulgences, which was once a promise of remission of sins, to their complete disappearance. As in the shift from "infallible" to "definitive." Or the shift in the nature of fetuses. Years ago a fetus could not be buried in blessed ground because they weren't fully developed human infants, my mother was told. Now even stem cells are protected as potentially privileged human beings. Some of theology, at least, is, apparently, a movable feast. The problem is that its tenets often only get changed long after it has done eons of damage to society, people and church alike. In the meantime, theology raises a lot of questions: How was it, for instance, that white converts could receive the Eucharist immediately but American Indian converts like St. Kateri Tekawitha had to wait until they had proven that even Indians could control their impulses and so would not violate the host? How was it that cultural understandings pretending to be moral absolutes, like segregation, could be so soundly theologized? How was it that public prejudices that purport to be eternal truths, like the prohibitions against mixed marriages, could shift to the point where those marriages now can now be shared by both ministers? How is it that birth control can be determined to be so clearly sinful but nuclear weapons are a matter of theological doubt? How is it that women, also made 'in God's image and likeness" -- according to God, at least -- have their access to God controlled by men? Answer: Who knows? The new news is that Roman Catholics do not have a monopoly on examples of circuitous theology presented from age to age as part of revelation. Anglicans are now in a theological bind of their own. In the first place, the Anglicans ordained openly homosexual priests but are now divided about whether or not gays can be bishops as well as priests. Now, the Church of England has determined that it will allow females to become bishops -- meaning that ordained women were not eligible for bishoprics before this time. And that is where the theology gets fuzzy. More than that, thanks to them, it gets fuzzier for us. Their questions create new questions for us, too. If women and homosexuals are "fit matter" for priestly ordination -- still a question for some denominations -- why wouldn't that be the same "matter" that's theologically necessary for episcopal consecration? So why is it a question at all? Especially when 87 percnt of the bishops, 78 percent of the clergy and 66 percent of the lay representatives to the Synod voted for it? But it is. To those who argue that a ban on the episcopal ordination of women undermines the credibility of the church, others respond that Christ's apostles were all male and it is wrong for women to have authority over men in a religious capacity. In fact, some Anglican priests are threatening to become Roman Catholics if the Church of England follows the theological principle of woman's ordination to the ultimate acceptance of women bishops. And the Roman Catholic church, history attests, will surely accept them. That's precisely what must make the rest of us wonder about the consistency of our own theology: Is this really a theological question at all? Or is it simply a matter of sexism or homophobia? Is such a motive really "fit matter" for genuine conversion if the only thing in question here is the role these already ordained women ministers will begin to play in the structure of the church itself? Is that a matter of faith or a matter of discipline, a matter of theology or a matter of prejudice? If the Roman Catholic church believes that a celibate priesthood is an essential dimension of Roman Catholic witness in the world, how is that we can accept married priests whose only disagreement with the theology of their church is their resistance to the promotion of women whose priesthood they have already accepted? What is "conversion?" Is this a real conversion to the Roman Catholic faith -- or is it just an attempt to run away from the leadership and authority of women? From where I stand, it seems that our theology of conversion may be as much in question as their theology of ordination these days. But one thing we can count on: there will be a good theological reason for it. The National Catholic Reporter

I agree. What's funny is, it took me most of my life to "find" my mother as my mother. LOL!. What I mean is, it's only since becoming an adult, moving away from home, getting married and moving back close to home, that my mom and I have developed the relationship we now have. My dad and my sisters are another story.

Ahhh, I see what you mean. The idea of a wrathful God and a compassionate Son are contradictory and mutually exlusive within the idea of the Trinity. The reason I asked is because I only recently became aware that not all church fathers believed in "original sin" or "atonement". It's my understanding that Eastern Orthodoxy, because of not being as influenced by Augustine as Catholicism was, doesn't really focus on the idea of atonement. It focuses more on the idea of Incarnation. I have to say I resonate much more with the idea that the world and mankind weren't created "perfect" and then later "fell", but that we are a "work in progress" and that we are becoming "divine". I can't hold to all of Iraeneus' (sp?) theology, but I do appreciate that aspect. Actually, atonement theory really turns me off Christianity. Always has. The idea of the Incarnation, however, really helps me feel close to God. The idea that God chose to become fully human (as Jesus, as Buddha, as "one of us") .... Sigh.

XianAnarchist made a comment in the new thread on Hell a few days ago that made me go "Hmmm." I decided to move the comment here, since it applies. THAT is something I did not know. So what does "orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea" teach about atonement?

Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheehehehehehehehe! That is the best and biggest laugh I've had all week! Thanks Fred.

I've really come to appreciate the concept of the Trinity, but not because it IS or IS NOT Biblical. Arguments can definitely be made from the Bible for both views, but to me, that is beside the point. My "metaphysical meanderings" have brought ME to the concept of the Trinity independently of what the Bible has to say about the matter. The fact that that happened to ME, independent of overt outside influences, made me go "A-Ha! No wonder the church fathers and the writer of John conceptualized God as a Trinity!" I've come to appreciate that the early church fathers were philosophers as much as they were theologians. I've come to appreciate that the Church traditions can carry as much truth as the Bible. JW's have a very literal interpretation of the Trinity that they then set out to demolish. It's a strawman actually, as most early church tradition does not teach or conceive of the Trinity in such black and white terms. I truly appreciate the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity, which thru Theosis is more of a "Plurality" - All of mankind, all of creation, was created in order to be joined to God, to become part of the Trinity. All of mankind is the "Son" of God. PS - I don't mean to imply that I don't think the Bible is very important to Christian theology. It is. However, I have come to appreciate that the Christian Church PREDATES the Christian Scriptures.

Thanks everybody! Des and Darby - LOL I wish 21! Des - I'd love to have you as a sister! Consider it done.

Thank you!

Hehehehehe Heck, I think we should write a book!

I have 4 cats that seem to have chosen to live with me. I have 1 more that still seems to be getting used to the idea.

Darby - I'm glad you're not leaving. I'd miss you. I enjoy your posts and hope that you reply to any and all posts that you feel moved to and not only those that you feel you are allowed (by forum rules) to. Of course, that's just me. I certainly can't speak for the forum owner, administrators or moderators. If you were a preachy, conversion oriented (to the exclusion of dialogue) individual, I might feel differently. Beach - I don't think either Des or I "pointed out" that you have a problem with Darby. I understand that your "beef" is with Fred. As one of the conservatives on this forum however, I can see how Darby might feel included in the sweeping generalizations being made about conservatives. I simply wanted Darby to know that he is wanted and appreciated here.

LOL XA! Did you see the whole THREAD about the subject?

Ah Darby, I sure hope you don't go! I enjoy your insight and input very much. You have always been kind and conversational. I've never felt any of your posts were "debate-ish" in nature. Just "you being you" has helped me to open my mind to other options, even if I don't always currently agree. Please don't go!

Hagen Daaz dark chocolate dipped, dark chocolate ice-cream. Tis proof that God wants us to be happy. I think Fred would say that beer is the proof.

I am looking forward to the PBS special. My husband had the book when we got married 6 years ago. I think he read some of it. LOL. After sitting untouched on our shelves for 6 years, I finally sold it used on Amazon. So many books, so little time.

Being a progressive Christian does NOT mean you HAVE to be a Democrat. I think that is one of the points that was trying to be made.

The first time you mentioned Gurdjieff I meant to chime in and say that, although I haven't read him or Oupenski (sp?), I once had an acquaintance tell me that many of my ideas were similar and that I might enjoy reading both of them. If I remember correctly, he especially recommended Oupenski. I don't know for sure what ideas might be similar however, because this acquaintance and I were also discussing kabbalah at the time and the whole conversation is a jumbled blur. It seems that much of our discussion regarding Gurdjieff centered around "soul making" and that rather than being creatures WITH souls, we are creatures who ARE souls. (Does any of that jive with what you've read? I wish the conversation wasn't so blurry. ) I had mentioned that I was having a hard time conceiving of WHY God would put PRE-EXISTENT immortal human spirits/souls (for those out there who interchange the words) into incarnate form for some reason. I think it was this comment that sparked his mentioning Gurdjieff. I've done a small amount of research on both men. Some of what they said is intriguing, some ridiculous (imo), like Gurdjieff's comments about the "moon". However, that doesn't mean both men didn't have some profound philosophical insights.

Ah, yes. I just reread the thread. It started out well enough, but then it turned into a debate about thinking versus experiencing. I am torn in situations like that. I seem to be both an "armchair mystic" and also an "armchair philosopher". There are days when I just want to hug trees and there are days when I want to discuss the ontological significance OF the trees.

Humorously enough, there is a Heart of Christianity thread on the Book Discussion forum, where we discussed, among other things, prayer and intervention.

Have you ever noticed that the best conversations happen when a thread goes off topic? But if another thread is started on the topic that the current thread wandered off on, then it dies? When I think of intervention or intercession from God, I think of God doing things like - curing someone's cancer, stopping a car bomb, preventing a tidal wave, leading someone to their lost keys or to a parking spot, etc ... It begs the question - why cure THAT person's cancer, but not the other person's? Why stop THAT car bomb and save those people but not the other car bomb? Etc ... When I was a Witness the WTS used to go on and on about how Jehovah prevented this Witness from getting killed in a war or helped save that Witness his job when ther rest of the employees were fired ... etc ... ad nauseam. To make claims like that is, to borrow a word you used, hubris. I dunno. I guess it's a fine line. If we define any interaction as intervention, then yeah, I believe God intervenes. I guess I'd like to define interaction differently than intervention. I do think God is there to offer guidance and comfort. I think most of the time that guidance is rather roundabout and subtle, but there might be times ...