Dor
Bible Thumper
I was not saying we should judge. Wil said would he wait for us to understand and I was saying no he was not worried about telling us we were wrong or calling us out.
Well, in some sense I agree. What does one do when a select group who pretty well self-define and self-relate petition for a separation? CR has not always had the segmented Christianity boards. Way back (oh boy, does that make me sound old...) when I first got here, there were the three Abrahamic faiths (not counting the other boards, who haven't really changed much) combined with Bah'ai. When the Rasta and Hari Krishna boards opened, Brian felt it best to move them to a "modern" board.cyberpi said:But the relevance I find in the statement, "Christ (pbuh) defines Christianity" is that people do struggle and argue with the definition of who or what a Christian or Christianity is. If someone makes an 'alternative' or 'Liberal' Christian sect section, then they are just trying to define what a Christian is and to categorize the beliefs of others by it.
Cool. Officially this site does not recognize "we" from "them" either. Can't help what individual participants do.The desire is to separate alledged Christian sects from alledged non-Christian sects... or to separate "WE" from "THEM". I don't recognize those divisions.
Yet, Jesus did differentiate. He did not take His message directly to the Gentiles, He saved that mission for Paul. He only interacted on occasion with those outside of Judaism; and most of those came to Him, not Him to them. I dare say, were He to pick up where He left off today, I doubt He would recognize the religious faith that started from His teachings. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen, but as Christians our hope is that Christianity has evolved in good ways.They are NOT the divisions that Jesus described in the Gospels. I don't see where Jesus (pbuh) defined an alternative Christian. I don't see where he defined a Liberal or a Conservative Christian.
In concept I agree. So, how does one deal with a Christian who doesn't do things quite the way *you* do? As an example, does it offend that I and others do not put "(pbuh)" behind His name? That was not one of His teachings. So, while one might make a lofty claim that Jesus defines the faith, which in concept I can agree with (and I think most Christians would agree with), the trouble lays in interpretation. Perhaps, does it occur to you, that what you are calling Jesus' definition, is really your interpretation? None of us were there to hear Him speak, and He is not present with us in a form we can ask, to learn what He may have actually meant.So I say with conviction that it is Jesus Christ (pbuh) who defines what a Christian is. Nobody here... take the argument to him.
Actually, I like this suggestion. I think it might create an administrative nightmare, but I like the basic concept. Take it to Brian if you would like, the feedback board is for just such suggestions.So my advice to this forum is that if posts get clogged into repeating subjects, then just break the forum into sub-forums based on those subjects, rather than by sect. Like: Trinity, Paul, EOD, abortion, SOG vs isG, what is Holy Spirit, other Gospels...whatever. They are recurring themes.
That invitation is there already. The only caveat ever asked was respect and politeness, with the delineation of canonical / non-canonical. The struggle came about from those who felt put upon because non-canonical views were not well received. This is an integral part of some Christian denominations, and would be the equivalent of using sources outside the Quran and Hadiths to criticize those texts...fightin' words among some, would you not agree? Therefore, the "Liberal" Christians pretty well self-defined, and sought a place of their own.Rather than define something truly obscure like a 'liberal Christian' and placing it outside of the Abrahamic religions all together as some sort of delinquent child, I'd vote to bring it back in and to organize sub-forums by subjects rather than by sects. Invite any and all people to discuss issue by issue
Perhaps parts of the world are in a state of "free-for-all," but they are also in a state of anarchy and incivility. Polite society is *not* a free-for-all, that is called "good manners."because the reality is that it IS a free-for-all. Life is a free-for-all.
The staff here do that very thing.Error on the side of lenience and compassion.
Why do you have a problem with discussing those issues where they are at? The "mainstream" board has taken a long time to build, by a lot of dedicated, long term contributors. That is something some of the newcomers fail to realize and turn a deaf ear to. The subjects desired to be discussed in the Liberal forum are there for a reason...they pose a threat of disrespect. One does not profane the name of Mohammed on the Islam board, yet there are those who are perceived to profane the name of Jesus, on the Christianity board no less. This was not acceptable. The current situation is the best fix possible under the circumstances, circumstances *requested by those who self-identify as Liberal Christians.* Give credit where credit is due...I find some relevance and corresponding verses in the Gospels in a couple of the listed 'alternative' sects that I'd like to discuss someday. Not now.
You're quite right, of course. I merely saw an argument I see sometimes to jsutify judgemental reasoning. I did take it a little out of context only because it illustrated so well what I have been trying to get across of late.Dor said:I was not saying we should judge. Wil said would he wait for us to understand and I was saying no he was not worried about telling us we were wrong or calling us out.
Exactly.wil said:The rules for this section are quite clear. There are certain tenents that this section takes as 'gospel' and those are sacred. Then there is a whole field of nuance to be discussed. As I see it anyone can discuss the nuance here, while respecting the tenents. ie you can't rip anyones carpet out from under them in any of the walled gardens. If you want to say their religion is poppycock, then go do it from someplace else...but it obviously won't spur intelligent discussion...just more knife throwing and sabre rattlin.
I agree, all the way around.Now on the Liberal board...in my view, and only my view, you can discuss anything pertaining to Christianity, you can question anything...I think that leads to growth and understanding. But what you can't/shouldn't do is indicate that someone is wrong and you are right because of a tenent that is accepted someplace else...this is discussion.
I could be naive, but I think we can all play fair....if we can't, who can?
Yeah, funny how that works...Dor said:Hey I am just glad someone posted there since I did.
I was afraid I broke the board posting on it.![]()
juantoo3 said:Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!
What it boils down to is those who hold the Bible as written as Sacred, and those who are more willing to pull from outside sources. Canonical, and Non-Canonical. That is the borderline.
juantoo3 said:The Liberal board is for discussion of non-Orthodox points of view, and non-canonical "scriptures" and "commentary." No one is exiled to that board, they are free and welcome to participate here...but with the understanding that certain subjects are considered disrespectful. Those subjects can be freely discussed there without fear of reprisal from the more orthodox point of view. There have been some rather nasty discussions and wars of words that no doubt would have come to blows had the participants been face-to-face. That is what we are trying to avoid.
Respect is about manners. I respect you because you respect me...if I disrespect you, you aren't going to take it well, no matter how good my intentions. I should ask apology.
Now, if I continue to disrespect, or do so deliberately, then all bets are off...explain please how disrespect leads to peaceful interaction? It doesn't.
This place is not a free-for-all, regardless of the outside world. The outside world is full of enough war and strife and disharmony and ill manners. This is a place first for peace and civility. Don't care what the opinions are.![]()
juantoo3 said:The Liberal board is for discussion of non-Orthodox points of view, and non-canonical "scriptures" and "commentary." No one is exiled to that board, they are free and welcome to participate here...but with the understanding that certain subjects are considered disrespectful. Those subjects can be freely discussed there without fear of reprisal from the more orthodox point of view. There have been some rather nasty discussions and wars of words that no doubt would have come to blows had the participants been face-to-face. That is what we are trying to avoid.
Respect is about manners. I respect you because you respect me...if I disrespect you, you aren't going to take it well, no matter how good my intentions. I should ask apology.
Now, if I continue to disrespect, or do so deliberately, then all bets are off...explain please how disrespect leads to peaceful interaction? It doesn't.
This place is not a free-for-all, regardless of the outside world. The outside world is full of enough war and strife and disharmony and ill manners. This is a place first for peace and civility. Don't care what the opinions are.![]()
I'm trying to follow your thoughts here, but it is a little confusing. I have heard some people argue that laws, *all* laws, are moral constructs, even traffic laws. I'm not fully certain I agree with that, but I do see something that confuses me. Why should *not* things like abortion, stem-cell research, etc, have a legal component to go along with the moral component?Saltmeister said:Sure, we do live in a very liberal, democratic and free world. Sure, we shouldn't forbid people from doing what they want to do, but when is it not wrong to tell people off, concerning religion and cultural attitudes.
Of course, that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with breaking the speed limit. That has nothing to do with cultural (and religious) attitudes. That's about personal safety. But consider abortion, stem-cell research, body-piercing, kissing in public, plastic surgery, teenagers having a right to make their own decisions, etc. That's about cultural attitudes, not "legal," non-cultural issues like personal safety, medical negligence, paying one's taxes, robbing banks, etc.
Well, in my opinion, there is a distinction between acceptable and tolerable. I am reminded of a saying I learned recently:The issue here is that it's disrespectful to criticise people on being "liberal" or "causal" about certain cultural and religious concepts. On the other hand, is it disrespectful, also to assert concepts in a place where "less liberal" and "more conservative" audiences might be listening, living and breathing?
Does a "democracy" mean that all "attitudes" should be acceptable?
It is easy to lose sight of this, I am pleased you haven't.(I am aware that CR is not a so-called "democracy," in the sense that the attitudes of conservative and traditional, as well as liberal and untraditional members are protected.)
The onus is on the traveller. To study up on the culture before going there (so as not to be too surprised). And to conduct themselves respectably when there. "Respectably" meaning: not causing a scene in public, acting like a child not getting things *their* way, and generally carrying the attitude that the country they are in and the citizens of that country are somehow second class and backwards / unenlightened. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is not an invitation to compromise one's principles, neither is it an invitation for an arrogant attitude.What happens when traditional-minded citizens go to more liberal countries?...liberal-minded people can't go to other countries and do what they want just because they think the idea of liberty is better than a culture that is more restrictive.
True. Which is why to conduct oneself with respect for the culture one is travelling through. Better to find the good in people and places, in my opinion, than to dwell on the bad.Liberty can be seen as a kind of arrogance. It may even be seen as a selfish, self-absorbed, self-indulgent attitude -- I can do whatever I want. A nation can be proud of its liberty, but that may be seen as a rude, ugly form of arrogance by a country that has a different system of manners.
I'm all for better manners around here. Goodness knows I've been doing my share, trying to spread that particular gospel.Concerning religious beliefs, I am thinking that although all beliefs should be heard, liberal and conservative (sorry for using labels), there should be mutual respect between all parties. Conservative believers shouldn't lord it over liberal believers and vice versa. Conservative believers could announce, in the knowledge that liberal believers might be reading, that they understand their views won't be accepted by everyone, and vice versa for liberal believers.
I guess liberal, unorthodox views can be seen as just as arrogant as conservative/traditional views. I think it goes both ways. This world doesn't belong to people with one attitude, it's supposed to be shared.
Thank you...I think.In that sense, CR is better, not worse, than a democracy. A democracy is one extreme. A draconian theocracy is quite another. CR is the middle ground.
What do you all think?
We are all here at the benevolence of our gracious host, a host who has every right to pull the plug and boot us all to the curb if he so chose. Not that he would, but the point is that the only "vote" that counts is his.
China Cat Sunflower said:Great post Salty!
---------------------------------------------
It's good to get along with one's host!
On the other hand: Brian would be sitting up alone at midnight furtively watching a hit counter if it weren't for the people who make this forum. Yeah, it's his terrarium, but it's a cool social experiment. It's kinda hard to legislate egalitarianism, and it's hard to set up a terrerium that never needs to be hosed out. But it's the people participating and reading those google banners that make this a community. Without us there ain't no forum.
Chris
juantoo3 said:I'm trying to follow your thoughts here, but it is a little confusing. I have heard some people argue that laws, *all* laws, are moral constructs, even traffic laws. I'm not fully certain I agree with that, but I do see something that confuses me. Why should *not* things like abortion, stem-cell research, etc, have a legal component to go along with the moral component?