Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: D-fendr
In these seminars, we disagree on quite a bit, particularly ecclesiology, and the discussion is very open and honest, people argue their beliefs skillfully and with passion. I’m familiar with theological dialogue and what it requires. Those requirements don’t exist here, now.

How about you give us a few good examples of what you call "open and honest" discussions on theological issues. Joining in on the "free-for-all" bash fest is hardly what I would term leading by example. What I HAVE observed when I read the "other side" - and I do - is that it takes but a smidgen of disagreement to be qualified as "Church bashing" and the subsequent comparisons to Liberal and Communist shills. Can't we at least comfort ourselves with knowing that long-time FReepers are not really the enemy in disguise? That perhaps there CAN be honest differences on theology without calling down an inquisition?

What I have learned in my years here is that adding more gas to the flame war NEVER settles it down and mud thrown is ground lost.

258 posted on 02/07/2012 6:13:27 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]


To: boatbums

Well, if you have examined both sides, then I guess we just see it differently.

As for an example of honest and open theological debate, we could take this thread, do the opposite, continue in that direction and eventually converge on one.

thanks for your reply.


261 posted on 02/07/2012 6:29:23 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

To: boatbums
adding more gas to the flame war

Not my intention. I made a couple of comments on the topic of the thread and that was pretty well it for me.

Until, on queue, the same few use the occasion to attack the Church. I'd be gone if not for that.

Correcting erroneous attacks have no effect when the attacker does not care to be correct. YMMV, but that's the evidence over time.

The attack is based on an opinion, for example, idolatry. My response was to illustrate that opinion was worthless. It took tenacity to fully illustrate, but there was point, it was not flaming. I think what you saw as picking was my attempt to force an answer and, IMHO, expose the ignorance of the initial attack.

I don't claim superhuman resistance to flames, I've certainly succumbed at times; but, I think overall I more often than not refuse trading insults. Mostly because I realize it indicates a lack of argument.

You can have the last word, I'm content to let my posts be what they are, those who object can have their own reasons that have little to do with the truth as best I can see it.

269 posted on 02/07/2012 6:46:57 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson