Food For Our Brains

Excellent points – my struggle though is forgiving those who talk about moving beyond this divide but then they set up an “inclusive” system that is just as rigid as the liberal/conservative paradigm they were seeking to abolish.

bully those who dare to disagree – this has proven to be a major problem in the US Emergent Church ™ dialogue. Raise valid points and next thing you know, you’re accused of libel or slander. Hard to have a healthy atmosphere in that climate.

Is it possible to critique an idea without ostracizing the person holding it?
——Yes, but often times the person who’s idea is being critiqued sees a critical critique as an attack. So the problem is two fold. The critiquer who attacks and the critiqued who takes critique as an attack.
—–Also, it depend on the idea. All ideas are not equal–at least in a biblical sense.

Is it possible to love someone who not only thinks differently than I, but to love someone who’s thinking is diametrically opposed to mine?
——Seriously, what kind of love are you meaning? What does that love look like?
Example:I am diametrically opposed to my brother’s lifestyle. He chooses to be a drunk. He knows more of the Bible than me, yet says he chooses hell for the pleasures of this temporary world. He wants his cake now. Do I love him????

How do we hold our ideas loosely enough for them to be critiqued without feeling personally attacked?
—–Not all ideas are equal. However, not all ideas are worthy of death, either; that is, seperation from someone who critiques my ideas. Yet, some ideas are so egregious they demand a person attack.

Is it possible for conservatives and liberals to dwell together in peace?
—–For a while, yes. But then a hot-button, to die-for principle pops up unexspectedly.

Is it possible to oversee such a diverse community where both conservatives and liberals can live and grow together?
—–Until one or the other side makes you choose a side.

Am I allowed to change my mind without being rejected by my community?
—–Depends on the idea; what is that change of mind idea.
Again, not all ideas/change of mind are equal.

All good questions—–with an innumerable dynamics attached to them.
fishon

David,
I am confused by your response. {My}…preferred forms…”? “…all the same question.”

I was just trying to answer YOUR question[s], in as a serious manner as I thought them asked. I thought your were really looking for thoughts. Ok, forget it. I’ll move on.
fishon

Boethius,
Oh I’ll be back. I just thought David was asking questions to elitist dialogue. I truely am confused by his response. I am not at all sure what he means in his response to my attempt at dialogue. When I said “I’ll move on,” that by no means I will be departing this forum. I will just move on to the next subject David brings up that interests me.

I guess I could ask you what you think of my answers to David’s questions? Let’s talk.
fishon

from what I’ve seen, conservatives seem to be the ones who hold to a basic doctrine, and allow everything except the basics to be questioned. Liberals question everything.

Except, if there is an absolute truth, somebody has to be wrong. And if being wrong will get you sent to Hell, then is it loving not to warn people?

and if you consider yourself Christian, then you should believe the Bible, and then you should believe in hell. If you don’t consider yourself Christian, then it doesn’t matter so much, unless the Bible is true. But I think it’s more worrying to see professing Christians falling away than people who don’t believe at all.

pah I’m falling away – I’m a liberal who’s been chameleoned into a conservative and doesn’t want to give up on God, but hates the doctrine of Hell (and knows it’s a sin)..

Ok, let’s try this again.

Is it possible to critique an idea without ostracizing the person holding it?
——–Yes.

Is it possible to love someone who not only thinks differently than I, but to love someone who’s thinking is diametrically opposed to mine?
——–You will have to answer that for your self. As for me—yes.

How do we hold our ideas loosely enough for them to be critiqued without feeling personally attacked?
———By having confidence in your ideas whether they are attacked or not.

Is it possible for conservatives and liberals to dwell together in peace?
———Sure

Is it possible to oversee such a diverse community where both conservatives and liberals can live and grow together?
——–Yep.

Am I allowed to change my mind without being rejected by my community?
———-You will have to ask them

Ok, there are answers without questions. All though, for the life of me I don’t see where my first answers were questions in the same vain as yours.

I think you play games, my friend.
fishon

I think the answer to your questions are, in a way, in your post:

“It is only understandable for everyone to think they are right and those who think otherwise are wrong(response 1). Once we agree with this, then we understand that the next step is to persuade the other to our way of thinking (response 2). Then once we agree with this, then we understand that the next step is to convert the other to our way of thinking (response 3). The once we agree with this, then we understand that the next step is the outbreak of violence (response 4)…. outbreak because the violence has always been there, latent in our judgment of the other.”

Is it possible to critique an idea without ostracizing the person holding it?

Aye, change response 2/3. Let them be wrong.

Is it possible to love someone who not only thinks differently than I, but to love someone who’s thinking is diametrically opposed to mine?

Yes, stop before response 4.

How do we hold our ideas loosely enough for them to be critiqued without feeling personally attacked?

Afford yourself the same luxury/right as you afford others in your modified response 2/3. Allow yourself to be wrong, even if the other person tries to convert you.

Is it possible for conservatives and liberals to dwell together in peace?

Surely it is, as long as you don’t define peace as being the total absense of conflict. I would suggest that if there is no conflict in life, then you are not getting close enough to anyone to touch them. When you stand close together you increase the risk of stepping on each other’s toes.

Is it possible to oversee such a diverse community where both conservatives and liberals can live and grow together?

I don’t envy that task. I would lean towards having no overseers for that sort of community. Living in it would be a blast

Am I allowed to change my mind without being rejected by my community?

Absolutely, IF there is are no idea’s of anyone being ‘above’ any other in any way. Who can do the rejecting if there is no authority (other than the natural authority of God that is).

In short, if you take away heirarchy (both formal or informal) and change our responses to situations to respond/live in such a way that there is no hint of anyone having authority, it’s do-able. Utopian, sure, but isn’t that what Christian life is striving for, a little bit of heaven/God’s kingdom on earth?

‘A theologically diverse religious community’…an oxymoron to say the least.

But why I ask? What is it about this thing we ‘our religion’ that is often(not always) a breeding ground for incompatibility,to speak kindly, or more honestly,violent contempt for those who dare to differ in their understanding of the ‘faith’?

Some think that the ‘inclusive’ religion of Jesus has been replaced by the ‘exclusive’ religion of Paul. Could there be any truth to such a claim and cd Paul, despite his religious genius,have been mistaken in his preoccupation with a ‘pure and undefiled’ gospel narrative?

More to the point: Is it not inevitable that there will be conflict if we continue to define what it means to ‘a theist’ only as a question and answer exam. As in…Do you believe in God?… that Jesus is His Son?…that He died for yr sins?…that He rose from the grave?…that the Bible is God’s word?…blah,blah,blah.I’m not suggesting the questions ,as stated, shld never be asked,but I do have a problem with them becoming ‘non-negotiable,or in other words ,when human constructed traditions become dogma,theology fails to be a pursuit of truth.

In summary,I think we need to step down from our judging pedastals and re-discover our common ground,while allowing for individual expression of each other’s position.WE might find that if we lower the bar,there will be less injury to one another.

Second line should read ‘THAT DO NOT FOSTER FAITH IN JESUS’

( when will I learn to type????)

Steve…you cd support that with John’s gospel,but I think it wd be difficult if you used the synoptics.The contrast is quite startling and very suggestive of the historical process these traditions were subject to.Given what we know of the period,I don’t think it wd be an exaggeration to say that we have a multiplicity of traditions,some with the same sources in part(synoptics),some with independant sources(John).The really interesting thing to imagine is why the synoptic tradition survived at all with respect to the contrasting portrait of the Christ of faith

Fishon…I’d like to think our common ground is ‘faith in God’ as opposed to our theology which has always proven to be more mercurial than some wd like. As for ‘constructed traditions’,let me suggest this.Imagine yrself a traveling merchant in Jerusalem on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion .What wd you have witnessed?…a man sentenced to a horrible public execution or the Son of God dying for the sins of the world. My point is we’re viewing this thru the rearview mirror,looking back as if everybody is on the same page and the same starting line(acts 15 wd suggest otherwise).If NT theology is understood as a response to certain key events of the life of Jesus in narrative form, a comparison of the different traditions(synoptics,John,Paul)suggest a development ,if not different understanding.I view this as a ‘human construct’.

FiF,

” …yr ignoring the obvious development…again,you’d have to twist yself into a theological pretzel to think that the synoptics teach us that Jesus is God…”

Maybe you’re right.

I’ll read them again and get back to you. In about a year.

kidding…late for church (midweek Lenten service)

I’m chiming in a few days late. I am a frequent poster at a Christian forum where it’s considered to be more liberal than conservative. Some pretty hot topics can come up which are debated with pages and pages of comments, arguments, and challenges. Some people are bound and determined to convince you something is a sin, and others are bound and determined to convince you it’s not. Some people can get quite offended, even to the point of saying goodbye and asking for de-activation of their membership. These tend to be the bullies, people with agendas, the fakers, and those who cannot handle being disagreed with. They are the exception, not the rule. Most people are willing to listen and more importantly, ask for clarification and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Even so, there is low tolerance for blatant BS by the people (not necessarily the moderators). They call a spade a spade, don’t entertain the spade, and then the spade goes off to wreak havoc elsewhere. Thankfully though, that’s a very rare occurrence.

A forum can hardly be compared to a group of believers who are in community together, BUT what I’ve learned is that people with opposing values and beliefs can enjoy a resemblance of an online “relationship” with a little something called mutual respect. Once we’ve reached some sort of understanding and a level of trust (it doesn’t take long to get a feeling for people you converse with every day), it’s possible to vehemently disagree on one issue, and support and agree with each other on another issue, and still end the day with a “catch you tomorrow!!” (some conversations go on for days and days and days!). And when people on the opposite side of a doctrinal fence confess a struggle and ask for prayer, people do not hesitate to encourage and commit to praying, and even asking about the situation days later.

Unfortunately, not everyone realizes this and instead of respectfully disagreeing, they flat out attack. The only way this kind of situation is remedied is when the more mature ones, even the disagreeing ones, come to the defense of the one being attacked. They don’t defend their stance, they defend the flesh and blood person who holds it, because being right isn’t really the goal. They are the same people who will apologize when they themselves slip up. It’s been quite the education for me, let me tell you.

I’m not sure what my point is really, I’m kind of rambling, but I suppose it’s just that I’m wondering that if it’s possible for a bunch of online strangers to work out their disagreements and come to a friendly understanding (and yes endure temporary offenses and misunderstandings), it must be possible in real life church IF (a big “if”) we are willing to stop being too afraid to speak up. Oh what we could learn from each other! I tend to think that in itself would be rocky at first (open and honest communication from everyone), but you would eventually come to a much healthier place relationship-wise (think of a marriage).

I refuse to believe this is not possible in a community, but then maybe I’m a fool.

Signed,
Heidi, who really needs to learn to say what she wants to say without so many freaking words!!

Heidi…good advice…Maybe with a little effort in the right direction, mere civility can lead to something spiritual

faithlessinfatima,
Was gone for the day. You may or may not be back to this particular debate, but if you are, one question: YOU WRITE:;My point is that a close reading suggests a multiplicity of ideas and beliefs that we are priviliged to witness while it’s under construction,the Jerusalem controversy being one good example.

——-What might be some of the “multiplicity of ideas” you are talking of? And as far as the Jerusalem controversy, I would suggest that that debate was a good display of God giving a view of how men bring in false teaching, only to have God use his voices to make right a wrong view being introduced to the Church. Instead of being a point of position to say, look, look at all the differences, it is a clear open view as how to get and make things right.
fishon

Fishon….on second thot,maybe ‘multiplicity of ideas’ is misleading….sounds more like ‘corporate brainstorming’,but what I was trying to suggest is that it appears that we’re witnessing(not intentionally)an evolving understanding of what wd become more central to the narrative and eventually orthodox.That is,if you cdn’t believe it,you were out the door.A good example wd be the higher Christology that the fourth gospel reflects and more specifically,the virgin birth which it(like Mark and Paul) doesn’t mention.If the birth narratives that we’re familiar with are absent from the earliest gospel and the most theological gospel that came decades later,and can only be found in the other two gospels that we know used the first, it at least suggests a growing and evolving understanding of who Jesus ‘was’ and ‘is’.

As for the Jerusalem incident,remember that Paul is challenging the Mother Church and the primary apostles as to how He thinks the gospel shld be understood and applied,not some mere ‘false teaching’ that crept in unnoticed.It’s a theological disagreement between the ‘big enchiladas’,and we know who won,if not, we might not be having this discussion

Fishon….Don’t you mean ‘evolving orthodoxy’ rather than an ‘evolving understanding of orthodoxy’…it seems like yr suggesting that all individuals , who were unknowingly responsible to affect the finished canon we call the NT,are on the same page with repect to theological understanding.I’m not suggesting that what came latest is best, but if the earliest gospel portrays a human Messiah and the latest,a pre-existent Son of God,then the inference is reasonable.A similiar pattern can be seen in another related context. A man sits down and writes a letter by candlelight to a friend…a century later,others read it as the Word of God.