Forum for discussions on theology

Faithlife created ChristianDiscourse.com for that purpose, to take theological discussions off the forums (here's a blog post announcing it). But it seems to be dead. Going to that link just takes you to faithlife.com. Mind you, faithlife.com is also a forum where people can create groups for theological discussions or whatever they want, and they are unmoderated. There are a few such groups on there (including one that was apparently created to discus ChristianDiscourse.com) but it doesn't look like there's been much recent activity on any of them. Search for groups of interest using keywords like discourse, discussion, theology, etc.

EDIT: Correction -- the site is actually ChristianDiscourse.net and it's still there. Apologies for the misremembered URL.

I would like to participate In something like this. Truly to learn more about other viewpoints, not to be right.  Hopes would be that participants would keep things respectful. Likely things will go off course at times. The easy solution if I am offended or feel it goes in a wrong direction is to just stop responding, stop reading or  stop participating in the discussion.

I have not participated for too long is this forum but seems that most often people are offended by moderators not enforcing the rules when they get theological, etc. Which is fair to feel that way because of the rules of this forum. That particular offense would not exist in a theological forum by the very nature of that forum being for that purpose.

We all know that there have been people on this forum that seem to thrive on starting controversy for that sake of controversy and become belligerent, I pray they either don’t participate or the rest of us have the wisdom and discernment not to engage.

1Cor10:31 said:

Rosie: It looks like ChristianDiscourse.com didn't take off. I guess convenience might be a reason. If the Forum allows theological conversations, it will be convenient because everything will be in one place.

Oh, it did take off and was quite active for at least a year or more. I checked it out several times in the beginning and there was a lot of activity on it and lively debates. I never participated, but it was fun to watch.

I'm not sure why it was shut down. Maybe interest level petered out, or maybe Faithlife sought to make their faithlife.com groups a replacement for it and didn't want it competing. But those don't seem to have really taken off. There might be a few active ones, but most of the ones I'm in have had no posts in a long time: 7 months, a year, 3 years...

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Thankful for long ChristianDiscourse.net thread, which helped grow my faith belief.

Ah, thanks for reminding me that it was ChristianDiscourse.net, not ChristianDiscourse.com.

So what I said above was incorrect:

Rosie Perera said:

Faithlife created ChristianDiscourse.com for that purpose, to take theological discussions off the forums (here's a blog post announcing it). But it seems to be dead. Going to that link just takes you to faithlife.com.

Good thing Ireneous, Tertullian, Augustine and the likes were not restricted from lively theological discussions.  Despite the fact that there will always be people that are not respectful, civil, reasonable, articulate, etc that engage, they should not be given the power to be able to prevent theological discussions for all. As someone pointed out, it is rare anyone changes anyone else’s position. However, I can certainly say I learn much from studies of historical debates as well as contemporary ones (including some that did take place on this forum). My core beliefs have not changed but there are several points of theology where I have evolved over the years. Even on positions where my theological view has not wavered, there are many times I have gained a better understanding of other perspectives. I have also learned that leaning to heavily on being sesquipedalian does not always strengthen an argument, often simplicity is much more effective.

I am clear under current forum rules it is prohibited and I am not suggesting we circumvent the rules. I do hope that such a forum would at some point be accommodated.

I understand and respect your opinion. To be clear I am not in any way suggesting it permeate throughout all threads. I get that there are many that want no part of it and should be “safe” from it. I guess what I was hoping for is a link to a specific thread/forum for theological discussions from FL Community site. I know there are sites all over the internet but the richness of knowledge from this group is unique and is something I wish could be utilized for those wishing to. It would be something you would proactively enter and know you are entering.

1Cor10:31 said:

David Wanat said:

There is an entire Internet to debate on....I’d rather not see that here.

David: You are free not to enter threads starting with the phrase "Theological Discussion:" But why would you want to prevent others from learning? You don't have to protect others; people coming here are big boys and girls, and can take care of themselves.  People know when they enter the thread "Theological Discussion:" that they will encounter differences of opinion. If they don't like it, they don't need to ever enter the thread again. As a financial economist, I want to say "let the market do its job." I can say that such threads automatically shut down if there is too much fireworks because demand for such threads would go down.

Your comment brings back bad memories. During COVID last year, some parents of the swim club my girl is part of didn't want the club to restart swimming. Nobody forced their children to attend practice, but they still didn't want the club to restart practice. I find it hard to understand this one-size-fits-all perspective. Why do we think that whatever is good for us must be good for everyone? As long as my freedom doesn't impinge on your freedom, why can't I have my freedom to benefit from engaging in theological discussion?

See my last comment. I’ve been a moderator on a forum where people carried their feuds off of the limited debate section and drove a lot of people away by their antics.

1Cor10:31 said:

David Wanat said:

See my last comment. I’ve been a moderator on a forum where people carried their feuds off of the limited debate section and drove a lot of people away by their antics.

I've been on this Forum only for a short time. And I already know who doesn't like whom! It is not theological discussions, therefore, that are responsible for these tensions between people. Usually, tensions arise when people think that they are not being treated fairly.  That is why I find it hard to believe that people will take issue with others who have different theological leanings. 

My favorite colleague is a staunch Catholic and we've had numerous discussions on rituals that Protestants frown upon. These theological discussions have never come between us. We work on research papers together and he is one of my favorite coauthors. Maybe, I am an outlier. 

Picture it this way: imagine somebody misinterpreted a comment you made, breaks the rules, gets warned. Then you’re commenting on a non-debate post. This person starts picking a fight with you, disrupting the threads you post on. I’m not talking trolls here. Just people who can’t let it go.  Now imagine more of these antics by multiple people. You don’t need two people fighting with each other to cause this problem. Just individual.

Now, you can have a lot of moderators to keep this under control. But is FL able to do that level of moderation? Or would they rather have their resources used elsewhere? And then, if the moderators ban someone, you can be sure that person’s supporters will accuse them of bias.

You might say “we’re all adults here.” But I’m talking about adults on theology forums. Adults who feel the need to pick apart their opponent’s post line by line and accuse them of “heresy.”

That happens a lot in debate forums and I doubt FL wants to deal with it.

1Cor10:31 said:

David Wanat said:

Picture it this way: imagine somebody misinterpreted a comment you made, breaks the rules, gets warned. Then you’re commenting on a non-debate post. This person starts picking a fight with you, disrupting the threads you post on. I’m not talking trolls here. Just people who can’t let it go.  Now imagine more of these antics by multiple people. You don’t need two people fighting with each other to cause this problem. Just individual.

Now, you can have a lot of moderators to keep this under control. But is FL able to do that level of moderation? Or would they rather have their resources used elsewhere? And then, if the moderators ban someone, you can be sure that person’s supporters will accuse them of bias.

You might say “we’re all adults here.” But I’m talking about adults on theology forums. Adults who feel the need to pick apart their opponent’s post line by line and accuse them of “heresy.”

That happens a lot in debate forums and I doubt FL wants to deal with it.

David: Allowing threads that explicitly allow for theological discussion does not cause spillovers. Spillovers of the type you mention are already happening. Thus, I don't see allowing threads that explicitly mention "Theological Discussion" to be a unique source of such disruptive spillovers.

In a forum of this size, 5% of the people, almost by definition, will fall in the left tail. And they are always going to be a pain for others. Why should the 5% dictate what the other 95% enjoy?

As with any decision, there are benefits and costs. In your estimate, costs outweigh benefits. In my estimate, benefits outweigh costs!

You‘re free to disagree with me of course. I won’t be offended. But I suspect FL won’t want to deal with it.

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Thankful for "No" answer. Thankful for current forum focus on using Faithlife Corporation software and resources.

The context of the problem was someone asking for clarification on the concept of Apologetics.

When I tried to give an overview of what I thought Apologetics was and what I would use it for, some posters took it as a disrespectful attack or something like that, when all I was doing is sharing my view (still in construction), so that others would share their take on Apologetics, so I could learn something in the process. How can one develop a tool, if not sure what different users will use it for?

I think an Apologetics guide would be a wonderful addition to Logos' features, but there seems to be no good way to get each to share their view of what it is and what is useful for without getting into hurt feelings (or so it seems).

The making of such guide is very in line with keeping with the software and resources, but there is another area that we will miss through misunderstanding.

Peace and grace.

xnman said:

A good honest and forthright discussion is good .... especially with good honest people!

...and there's the rub.

With a name like disputatio, it's got to be good!

xnman said:

I have been in several "Christian Discussion Forums" and I find that, for the most part, people do not want to discuss anything that their "particular form of theology" does not support. I could name several such topics ..... to my chagrin.

It seems people want to "tell of their form of Christianity" (as if their is more than one form) and then get mad if anyone challenges them in that thinking. 

I don't understand that. Isn't it in "good honest discussions" that we learn we are right or wrong on a subject? Isn't it through the proving of what we believe to be right that we actually come to know what is right? 

A good honest and forthright discussion is good .... especially  with good honest people!

Totally agree. I have participated in Discussion Forums, and after a while, most catch that I am more into sharing to compare and to have people spot problems in the constructs that I share than getting into a contest of rightity (as in who is right). 

I am a firm believer in "check all retain what is good", and fully understand that each individual has to make their own mind after checking to see if things are so.

Our ability to study, discern, ask God for help, and guidance from the Holy Spirit, was given to us by God, and for use within our capacities, I would think is an undelegable responsibility to check to see if things are so, regardless of who suggests the theological constructs.

Where we bump heads sometimes is on what is considered the ultimate Authority. For me the Word of God is the ultimate standard, so that tradition, reflection, reason, illumination, etc, must be aligned with its main thrusts.

I understand that others do not give the Bible as much authority, but sometimes I am baffled by the seeming not respecting dogma of their group either.

Example: I looked in my Catholic resources to see if Church was near "hope of the world". Lo and behold, it does not appear to be a dogma of the Catholic Church the statement that "The Church is the hope of the world", at no point seems to be official dogma.

The most relevant search hit I found was someone commenting on Wisdom of Solomon, where "the Boat" of Noah was considered a type of the Church, and "Noah himself" was considered the hope of the world.

I fully agree with such interpretation, because at the time of the Flood, Noah was (as an elected man of God) the hope of the world.

Now looking into the theological implications of the above interpretation, I can relate it to modern times with the Church being the Boat again, and "Jesus Christ" (the elected Being of God) as the hope of the world.

Following perfectly in line with the spirit of the Wisdom of Solomon interpretation, the elect is the hope of the world (in our times Jesus Christ), and the Church is just a means by which Christ dwells and moves about.

Now to take the theological implications a little further, note that in line with the Catholic interpretation, there is a potential common sense understanding:

If the boat (Church) no longer carries the hope of the world (i.e. Jesus Christ), and is not guided by God's hand, then it becomes basically a Tree not producing fruit, and its destiny most likely would be scrapyard.

And that is what I was referring about checking how our organizations are doing.

Many times in many different forums, I have encountered this attitude by self identified as Catholics getting really mad when talking about the Church, when is clear that if is not aligned with its original purpose, it does not amount to much.

Like some have mentioned in other forums, Jesus Christ died for us, not any particular Church, and that is the maxim I keep in mind when commenting that institutions need to have overwatch systems to make sure they are faithful to God's intent for them.

David:

firm, stubborn, pigheaded, I did understand but did not want to get into it. Now I realize it does bear on Apologetics:

Tribalism, and for our pain in neck, now Postmodern Tribalism, even worst.

Why is important, and why it needs to be studied and guarded against?

Excerpt from L9:

"... In the end, when tribalism absolutizes culture’s determinative power over an individual, this puts culture in the place of God. One’s entire concept of reality, morality, salvation, origin and purpose ultimately depends on one’s tribal traditions, not a transcendent God."

 Wilkens, S., & Sanford, M. L. (2009). Hidden worldviews: eight cultural stories that shape our lives. Westmont, IL: IVP Academic.

The danger is real and present, I would add to the quote "not a transcendent God [that immanently operates through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit mediators and are representatives of such God]".

If one looks closely, there is even a chance of tradition / denomination "determinative power over an individual" (as is born into that tradition), to put "entire concept of reality, morality, salvation, origin and purpose depending on such tradition and not God".

Thus my concern to develop overwatch systems, since indoctrination into man made constructs without giving the person a chance to critically evaluate the validity of such constructs seem to me are a violation of basic human rights.

Things written in the Bible were so written to be examples to us. Could it be that God wanted to teach us something about the Glory of God bearer in the pericope of the colt transporting Jesus into Jerusalem?

Maybe the Church is a boat carrying colts that carry God's Glory. If so, lets not show our Coltheadedness, and let Christ's light shine forward, because is when He is raised that all are attracted. [trying to be funny understanding that we may be the coltheaded (pigheaded equivalent to your allusion)].

David Wanat said:

My concern over terms like “Churchianity“ was how it was a derogatory term and could be used that way to describe a behavior.

Some things are just unpleasant, ugly, mean, or obnoxious (among other negative traits), and it is just as much a problem to not identify such traits and behaviors as negative as it is to oversell the negativity when it's not appropriate. Calling any attempt at accurate identification of the negative as being "derogatory" or "demeaning" is both unfair and ill-advised. It's just a quirk of language and life that unflattering actions get unflattering descriptions. Like I said in that post that got closed, if Churchianity can't be allowed to be a thing (or can only be a thing unnamed), then Christianity is a monster. There is a large segment of church history that is despicable, with Jan. 6 being one of the more recent demonstrations. If one is not allowed to divest such actions and attitudes from the religion, then the religion is to blame. It strikes me as both counterproductive and self-immolating to reject the concept of Churchianity by disallowing it's mention or discussion. Sure, there will be debates about where the epithet is most appropriately used...no doubt it will always be applied toward the other, not one's mother. But almost everyone can agree that Christianity is beset with serious issues that are akin to identity crisis and crass impersonation. Even in saying what I am about this topic, I find myself resorting to euphemisms, which I have attempted to resist but which keep creeping in. Being polite is a fine virtue, but like most things, it can be abused and misused. YHWH, of course, is frequently not pleasant, polite, or kind, and there are reasons for His reactions. Insisting that our reactions be pleasant, polite, or kind under such conditions can be a serious problem, and might even be sin. "There is a time for..." discussing and identifying Churchianity, because refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room can be just as inappropriate as casting unwarranted aspersions.

Hamilton wasn't specifying who constituted Churchianity; he merely said such a phenomenon exists. It does. For Christianity's sake, it better. Playing Three Monkeys at such a time is a serious problem of the "find sand...insert head" kind.