Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17951 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, I think you brought up a very important point in a recent post. If a person comes to this forum looking for help and answers, and sees nothing but confusion, then they will be hurt instead. There are several solutions to this problem. I would like to share a few ideas that I have. 1. After a person asks a question, only have three people respond initially, and wait for the original person to elaborate again before everyone else jumps in. I know that there's no way to stop people from posting, but those of us who post most often (see the top 20 in my voting post recently) could just agree amoung ourselves to refrain from posting if there are already 3 responses. 2. While a thread is "alive and kicking", we could all agree to stay within the scope of the original question. In other words, if the original question is about baptism, we refuse to digress into a debate about free will. At the same time we could preface our statements with a phrase such as, "from a perspective which believes that we have the ability to choose to accept or deny God's free gift of salvation, we believe such and such about this issue, based on these verses." Then others who didn't agree with the perspective could instead of arguing that point say, "that makes sense from that perspective, but from the perspective that God alone decides the salvation of mankind, we believe such and such about the issue, based on these verses". Then what is being discussed is the original issue, and if anyone wants to discuss which perspective is correct, they can start a seperate thread on that. 3. After a thread has pretty much closed down, the person who started it (or another of their choosing) could write up a summary statement. This would be done after many people had already given their ideas on a subject, and a certain time period (perhaps a week) had passed since anything new was added. There could be a standard heading for these type of posts (perhaps "Consensus of the Thread"). That way at the end of each thread there would be one post that people could go to in the future who were interested in that topic. This would also be an opportunity to show that although we disagree on some details, we are unified on the essentials. This summary thread could focus on the overall answer to the question that everyone seemed to agree to while just mentioning some of the nuances of specific posts. An example where I tried to do this can be found by searching "native consensus". I think that if we could agree (or at least many of us) to do these things, that it would make this forum a much more helpful place for others to come to for guidance and truth. There could of course be other, better plans, but this is what came to my mind. What do you guys think? |
||||||
2 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 18059 | ||
Sir Pent On this issue I think point #1 is most important we have people giving answers to questions nobody understands enough to answer. I chuckle at the eagerness of some responders jumping on a question when there is no possible way from the wording of the question to understand what is being asked. Point #2 I think that is just common sense, however many have displayed a total absence of that quality in this area. Point #3 is the most important and one I have been campaigning for since the inception of this forum. It was the cause for my initial refusal to participate when first invited. In many if not most threads there are all kinds of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and teachings. How is one to decide what is reliable, what is not? However as I have been informed so many times a summary unless done from a completely neutral perspective would actually end up being a statement of the summarizers biases, beliefs, prejudices, and opinion. In truth there is no one neutral enough. My opinions, that and price of a cup of coffee will get you just that - a cup of coffee! EdB |
||||||
3 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18065 | ||
I suppose my question would be, What is a neutral perspective? Once you start getting beyond the very basics of the Christian faith, we delve into areas that are incredibly shaped by one's theological perspective. Whether one is asking how can a loving, all-powerful God permit the terrorist attacks in New York City; or how (and even IF) he can be assured of his salvation, different traditions within Christianity will come into play. The answers will conflict at times. Should we all "agree to disagree," and in essence say that the answers do not really matter? Debate is something that has characterized the church from its very beginning. Without wrangling at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts, where would the Gentile believers be today? What about the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, in which the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity was codified? Reasoned debate and discussion has led to most of the beliefs we cherish (or should cherish) today as followers of Christ. To avoid debate is to constantly wade in the shallow end of the pool, theologically speaking. I agree that repetition is not necessary in written discussion or debate, except in the case of summary or to particularly emphasize a point. However, to shun debate in order to falsely present a consensus on all issues is nothing less than deception. We debate, sometimes vigorously, not necessarily because we are contentious beings, but rather because the issues on this forum do bear a lot of importance. The online debate between Tim Moran and myself, for example (even though I think he is as wrong as he thinks I am), has served both to help me clarify my own thinking and understand the perspectives of others. My biggest complaint regarding debate is the way that soem conduct it. We are not engaged in a presentation of opinions or of theology with no clear Biblical basis. What irks me is that in debate here we see such a scarcity of actual references to the Word of God. I see a lot of "I believe this" or "I grew up under pastors who teach this" with little or no Scriptural support. When the debate turns to the Bible, often one of the debaters turns to ad hominem attacks rather than critiques of the theological perspective being put forward. If you do not like rigorous, in-depth discussion of the more profound questions raised here, that is fine. One is not forced to read the threads on here. However, unless the discussion is clearly not Bible-related or is obscene or inappropriate in some manner, let's all please realize that on unmoderated forums such as this, what we see here is par for the course. Feel free to debate with me on my point of view. My skin is thick enough to take it! :) --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 18067 | ||
Joe I was never one to shy away from a good debate. I usually jump in with both feet. However step back and look what it presents to a new believer or a seeker. It appears the Christian community is so divided, or fragmented that no one is quite sure what to believe. The best they can do is to agree to disagree. Furthermore many times since there is no consensus of opinion a person could walk way thinking as a Christian your are free to believe what you want as long as you respectfully agree to disagree with anyone that tells you different. We being human and do to differences in education, biases, and many other factors, we refuse to read passages by defined standards of grammar and fail to hold the one passage of the bible will not conflict with another if the correct context is found for both. Therefore we are unable to find the correct meaning to a passage and agree to disagree. I submit to you that is not how God intended his Word to be taken. So I wouldn’t stand so proud on your ability to agree to disagree. That said as to item #3 the summary if I was summarizing a debate would you not expect me to present my summarization in such a way that my point was more favorably shaded than yours? In other words after we agree to disagree as you put it and having the responsibility to summarize the discussion wouldn’t I be tempted to take on last shot at your position through this final summarization? I wonder how Christ views our thick skins and eagerness to debate? :-) EdB |
||||||
5 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18089 | ||
Ed: I think that there are very few seekers that frequent this virtual establishment. There is not going to be a consensus of opinion, no matter what. I have even been called an arrogant know-it-all here for holding to such radical ideas as the idea that God is uncreated and the sufficiency of Scripture to reveal God to humanity and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I think you misunderstood the rest of my post. I was actually agreeing with you that a "neutral summation" is impossible. I also am not keen on "agreeing to disagree," as you yourself can personally attest. There does come a time when a debate is exhausted, but is one person's annoyance the basis for terminating discussion? I hold that this forum is not primarily evangelical in nature, but exists primarioly to spur one another on...to challenge and edify fellow believers. What I was saying is that the inability to convince one another of our opinion should not be a deterrent to presenting ones view and (here's the key:) SUPPORTING IT WITH SCRIPTURE. If I had a dime for every time a person cried "foul" or attacked my motives or character when I asked a simple rebuttal question based on a Scripture passage, I could finance my own Bible translation! --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 18155 | ||
Joe I totally apologize, I honestly do not know what I was reading. I went back and reread (or read with understanding for the first time) your response. I misunderstood what you were saying and I am really sorry!!! I agree with you with the exception of who visits this forum. I believe (can't prove) there are many seekers and baby Christians that come here looking to see what Christianity is all about. My concern is what picture are we painting for them. I agree with you scripture when handled correctly will interpret itself. The problems come when you ignore the rules of gammar and develop our own interpretations. I so sorry for the misunderstanding, I really don't know what I was reading. EdB |
||||||
7 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18193 | ||
Ed: No offense taken at the misreading. It happens! I certainly didn't think there was any malice there. You are also correct at the dangers of individuals doing the "maverick" interpretations with their Bibles. When the Protestant Reformation gave the Bible back to the laity, the Reformers certainly didn't consider that it would be a great idea for everyone to run off and figure everything out for themselves. God gave us the church (the church universal and invisible) so that TOGETHER we can correctly come to correct interpretations of the Bible. The notion of "private interpretation" simply meant that we do not rely on a religious hierarchy to tell us what God is saying to us. That is one of the great things about this forum. Despite the fact that we often rub each other the wrong way and will not come to a complete consensus on major (yet not salvific) issues, together with our different educational levels and perspectives and backgrounds we are learning about each other and from each other. Ever since God started saving Gentiles, there has been a lack of complete agreement on issues. Some of them, like the Judaizers, fell under the category of heresy. Others, like whether to eat this or that, did not place someone outside the brotherhood of Christ. In any case, our great God in his sovereign grace has preserved the bride of Christ despite our misunderstandings and imperfections and differences of opinion. This is who we are as a church. What better picture to paint for the newcomer to the forum than that one? --Joe! P.S. I do long for the time when we will stand together, glorified, and you all see things my way! :) |
||||||