Traditional Theology Questions and Answers Thread

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So far , and long may it continue , it's working

Soli Deo Gloria.... And since I seem to have jumped in (by invitation) I will TRY to abide by that.


From MY personal, fallible, often silly perspective....


1. Isn't this what all the forums are for? About? Only "orthodox" Christians may post..... they can't challenge the Nicene Creed..... they must be RESPECTFUL above all.... they cannot "flame" any other poster.....


2. It SEEMS that the rubric here is all posting just agree to play nice. AND that seems to be working! And hey, I agree - run with that! In some ways, I think that should be the case everywhere at CF. I've been a voice for moderation that is largely from fellow posters than from Staff, that it be helpful rather than punitive in nature, and that it be as transparent as possible. On the other hand, it's sometimes easier to prevent problems than deal with them. There's something to be said for uber-clear and consistent definitions and guidelines.


3. Like many here, I've been posting WAY TOO MUCH at forums like this since I was 12 years old. Thousands and thousands of posts, at probably a dozen or so similar sites. Been on staff at a few of them. In MY personal, fallible opinion, PART of the "problem" is that often, these are not academic discussions. They are often about things people feel VERY passionate, very zealous about. Issues that go to the very core of their heart, their being, life. It's HARD to be "objective" or "academic" or "theoretical" and things get...... personal. People come to defend not some point in their Catechism, but a point on which their LIFE rests. "I disagree" can - emotionally - be twisted into some threatening attack. I think it's largely unavoidable for some. I LIVE in a world of unbelievers and in my very old age have become BOTH solid/sure/certain AND a bit accepting that most will disagree with the very center of my life, the very thing I literally would die for. I've been told that, as a Christian, I suffer from a serious physiological disease, etc. Doesn't effect me at all (ANYMORE). But it took me awhile (wasn't "there" when I began posting at CF). My point: Some will twist "I disagree" or "I believe that's wrong" into something offensive or hurtful or threatening..... and then..... well, you know what happens: it all just takes on a life all it's own, feeding on itself.


4. Communication is TWO-WAY. I think two things are important: Being careful how things are said AND being careful not to take offense, even when things could have been worded better. I think it's important to not ass-ume. It takes TWO: the poster AND the reader. We are far too apt the point the finger at the poster (the other!) and evade the reader (ME!). No one MAKES anyone feel or do anything..... we need to own up to our part. It often wise to start by looking in the mirror.


If I post here - and do so inappropriately - I ask that you remember, I'm not perfect. And I'm actually a pretty nice guy. Humble and amazingly good looking, too. NO hurtful thing is EVER - EVER intended. Talk to me.... ask questions....... perhaps I can clarify (or just word things better). AND, yup, I return the favor. Very rarely "reporting" anything or anyone, very rarely taking offense. Forgiveness. Patience. The issues we discuss are, at times, passionate things..... something things we'd die for. And folks, we're going to be spending ETERNITY with each other - best not get off on a bad foot.... I try to NEVER forget that.


SORRY!!!!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Anhelyna]

You know CJ

Something strange has happened to most of us who are Ambassadors [ and as you've seen we aren't all Ambassadors ] since TT opened - we have all got much more careful over our own posting style.

I'm actually pretty hot tempered , but I'm learning to control it - and this helps discussion to flow pretty smoothly.

you said

There's something to be said for uber-clear definitions, guidelines.

yes sometimes that can help - but the snag is people don't read them - they are normally too long and involved - that's why we have our short descriptor - it's there when we come to TT.

We thought long and hard about things before TT was opened - I can't remember how many different titles were suggested - and thrown out.

The one thing we all agreed on from the beginning was that we were going to be a non-combative forum/board/chat room or whatever you want to call us.

Here we don't come to defend our position - we come to talk about how we see things - and how someone else sees things. We have already had interesting discussions on how we see Lent /Ash Wednesday in our own traditions and hopefully this sort of discussion will continue .

This way we are learning about each other's traditions in a less formal setting . We are able to see our differences and our similarities.

We have all had the experience of people looking at us as if we have horns and a leathery tail , but we can get over that.

Speaking personally - I don't think I've hit the button in TT since it opened . I've hit it in a couple of places elsewhere but actually less than before.

Enjoy your time here with us

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Isn't this what all the forums are for? About? Only "orthodox" Christians may post..... they can't challenge the Nicene Creed..... they must be RESPECTFUL above all.... they cannot "flame" any other poster.....

This particular subforum is for traditional Christians who wish to actually uphold the intended desire of CF's beginnings. Not all Nicene Christians are traditional.

2. It SEEMS that the rubric here is all posting just agree to play nice.

<snip>

That's never been true. The precurser of this subforum, The Round Table, has never been that and will never be that, and I've been among the most vocal about that.

3. Like many here, I've been posting WAY TOO MUCH at forums like this since I was 12 years old. Thousands and thousands of posts, at probably a dozen or so similar sites. Been on staff at a few of them. In MY personal, fallible opinion, PART of the "problem" is that often, these are not academic discussions. They are often about things people feel VERY passionate, very zealous about. Issues that go to the very core of their heart, their being, life. It's HARD to be "objective" or "academic" or "theoretical" and things get...... personal. People come to defend not some point in their Catechism, but a point on which their LIFE rests. "I disagree" can - emotionally - be twisted into some threatening attack. I think it's largely unavoidable for some. I LIVE in a world of unbelievers and in my very old age have become BOTH solid/sure/certain AND a bit accepting that most will disagree with the very center of my life, the very thing I literally would die for. I've been told that, as a Christian, I suffer from a serious physiological disease, etc. Doesn't effect me at all (ANYMORE). But it took me awhile (wasn't "there" when I began posting at CF). My point: Some will twist "I disagree" or "I believe that's wrong" into something offensive or hurtful or threatening..... and then..... well, you know what happens: it all just takes on a life all it's own, feeding on itself.

That's an issue with people, not the forum, Christianity, or anything else. And those people will be dealt with swiftly and soundly in TT; mark my words.

And honestly, as a quick aside and without attempting to sound persecutory, people who cannot control themselves socially, particularly those with social disabilities, probably should not post on the internet and have their use of it limited to non-participatory use (no social media accounts) until they can function within acceptable levels. The number of Youtube celebrities who have these disabilities and act like prepubescent children is astronomical, and they give people with these disabilities an enormous disservice by advertising a negative stereotype and being rewarded for it with $$$$$$$$. And that's a real count of the figure number a few of them make. Mammon mammom mammon.

But I digress...my apologies to all. As an advocate for people with disabilities, and as someone with AS, it is a huge pet peeve of mine.

<snip>

If perfection is what is being sought, that's not to be found anywhere. That's why rule exist. That's why people get Corrective Personal Messages. That's why people get Warnings and Infractions; that's why they get Bans, be they specific or general. There are going to be victims, jerks, and utter pain-in-the-rear-ends no matter what.

What this subforum is about is eliminating as much of the problems as humanly possible by establishing strict rules of conduct and being very careful on membership and participatory purposes. This subforum is an experiment: what can CF really look like when people truly and honestly agree to behave? Its precurser, The Round Table, was founded by admittedly like-minded folks in theology but also in that CF doesn't function as it was intended. So we made our own side community where we were careful selecting or accepting people to join. And what happened? Quality conversations being discussed by a surprising diverse theological field: liberals, moderates, conservatives. Presbyterians and Baptists with Roman Catholics and Anglicans. We count Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Protestant groups as well among members. THAT'S CF! That's what CF was intended and we were able to successfully "recreate it" in microcosm. Now we're seeing how it works in a grander scheme. And so far, it is working.

I fully expect several people to face the consequences of not adhering to the conduct requirements in TT. That's not being pessimism, but realism. Is that the fault of CF, TT, or those who helped to form it? No; it is the fault of individuals.

If you (and I'm going to violate my own self-imposed rule on using that term for obvious reasons) are worried that you will get in trouble for disagreeing with someone here, then there are two reasons for that: either you are going to say something wrong and know it or you are worried that the participants won't hold true. I'd say 85% of participants are members of The Round Table and another 5% were invited but didn't accept. If you doubt the sincerity of this, then I will personally see to getting you access to The Round Table as an observer so you can see the very crux of this holy experiment for yourself. So let me personally assure you your fears are for not.

The only people who have anything to fear on TT are those who are going to breaks the rules and know it. I don't think you are one of those people. I personally was exceptionally vocal about making sure even non-traditional Christians could come and fellowship and ask questions. Why? Because it would be against good Christianity and the intents of CF to do otherwise. They and they alone exclude themselves.

So give it a shot. Experience how good it is to see how CF can be...how it should be everywhere. It is hoped that this can be a springboard or at least a shining beacon for the rest, and I've seen staff members write as much. If you want to be a part of it, by all means join! I daresay you'd qualify for full membership, which would probably be extended to you after a week or two of sold posting.

The decision is yours' and yours' alone. I strongly suggest taking it up.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The precurser of this subforum, The Round Table, has never been that and will never be that, and I've been among the most vocal about that.

Sorry, never heard of it.

But, I'm struggling to understand, exactly, how you are responding to the 4 specific points I made about this forum.....

And it seems to ME, "we're agreeing to be nice" is EXACTLY what the others are saying in this thread.... keeping rules, (other) guidelines, definitions at arms length. AND stressing that just agreeing to be nice seems to be working. I applauded that.

those people will be dealt with swiftly and soundly in TT; mark my words.

Sorry.... I'm not sure whom you mean by "those people." Are you speaking of those who choose to take offense when none was stated or meant?

It's precurser, The Round Table, was founded by admittedly like-minded folks in theology but also in that CF doesn't function as it was intended. So we made our own side community where we were careful selecting or accepting people to join. And what happened? Quality conversations being discussed by a surprising diverse theological field: liberals, moderates, conservatives. Presbyterians and Baptists with Roman Catholics and Anglicans. We count Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Protestant groups as well among members. THAT'S CF!

Why was it discontinued?

If you (and I'm going to violate my own self-imposed rule on using that term for obvious reasons) are worried that you will get in trouble for disagreeing with someone here, then there are two reasons for that: either you are going to say something wrong and know it or you are worried that the participants won't hold true.

Hum. I haven't a clue how you got any of that from what I posted.....

I'd say 85% of participants are members of The Round Table and another 5% were invited but didn't accept.

Sorry, I apologize, I never heard of that. Perhaps I wasn't invited? I don't know what it was. I don't know why it was terminated. Sorry, I'm at a loss with whatever point you are making by referencing that simply because I have no clue what "that" was. Sorry.

If you doubt the sincerity of this

... again, sorry, sincerity of WHAT?

The only people who have anything to fear on TT are those who are going to breaks the rules and know it.

My concern was that folks might break rules that aren't stated.

And, in MY fallible (and usually wrong) opinion, it is a LONG STANDING characteristic of this particular website to place 100% of the focus on the poster part of communication and 0% on the reader part of that.

I personally was exceptionally vocal about making sure even non-traditional Christians could come and fellowship and ask questions. Why? Because it would be against good Christianity and the intents of CF to do otherwise. They and they alone exclude themselves.

So non "Traditional" posters are welcome here, too?

So give it a shot.

I have several posts here.

The decision is yours' and yours' alone. I strongly suggest taking it up.

.... already have.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You know CJ

Something strange has happened to most of us who are Ambassadors [ and as you've seen we aren't all Ambassadors ] since TT opened - we have all got much more careful over our own posting style.

I'm actually pretty hot tempered , but I'm learning to control it - and this helps discussion to flow pretty smoothly.

you said yes sometimes that can help - but the snag is people don't read them - they are normally too long and involved - that's why we have our short descriptor - it's there when we come to TT.

We thought long and hard about things before TT was opened - I can't remember how many different titles were suggested - and thrown out.

The one thing we all agreed on from the beginning was that we were going to be a non-combative forum/board/chat room or whatever you want to call us.

Here we don't come to defend our position - we come to talk about how we see things - and how someone else sees things. We have already had interesting discussions on how we see Lent /Ash Wednesday in our own traditions and hopefully this sort of discussion will continue .

This way we are learning about each other's traditions in a less formal setting . We are able to see our differences and our similarities.

We have all had the experience of people looking at us as if we have horns and a leathery tail , but we can get over that.

Speaking personally - I don't think I've hit the button in TT since it opened . I've hit it in a couple of places elsewhere but actually less than before.

Enjoy your time here with us

Thank you!! I'm extremely pleased it's working.....

And I hope what I posted above is helpful, at least in understanding one perspective and poster....

And to the extent I post here, I'm CERTAINLY embracing the concept!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Anhelyna]

CJ - take a deep breath please , we are all human and as we have entered Lent , or will be entering the Great Fast after the weekend we are possibly getting a little stressed now.

You have been told by more than one of us now - TT does not operate the way the rest of CF does nowadays . We are trying something out - that developed on the Round Table [ OH and I am not a member - was never approached ] We are a listening people , we are a caring people , we are friendly people and as such we don't need a detailed set of rules of behaviour.

Is that OK with you ?

We will work with people who can't understand us - but Mark does have a BIG HAMMER as the ultimate weapon /sanction . But it will never be used without warning - and that warning will be given privately. We don't wash our dirty linen in public - that's not our way.

Now sit back - read our posts - join our discussions and enjoy a different type of forum - at the moment in CF we are unique .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Interesting thread. I didn't post in it until now. I hope some more Q & A discussions will follow.

God have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting thread. I didn't post in it until now. I hope some more Q & A discussions will follow.

God have mercy on me, a sinner.

Well, I'm in here, and some would say I'm questionable!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I'm in here, and some would say I'm questionable!

You're quite good my friend. A little protective of brother CaliforniaJosiah but good all the same.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You're quite good my friend. A little protective of brother CaliforniaJosiah but good all the same.

I've got everyone's back.

 

[Anhelyna]

And believe me - we all appreciate the support as we get used to this very different approach to sharing our views

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi everyone, this is a brand new forum with a brand new approach. Feel free to ask whatever questions you like and we will try and answer them for you.

Blessings and peace!

Mark
Advisers Assistant.

Is debating and/or stating ones view allowed on this board, or is it to just ask questions?
I should have asked before I posted.

.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Is debating and/or stating ones view allowed on this board, or is it to just ask questions?
I should have asked before I posted.

.

Right.......

 

[Radrook]

Why do Catholics consider that Mary having congress with Joseph would have been a sin?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why do Catholics consider that Mary having congress with Joseph would have been a sin?

You might want to start a thread to ask the question. I think you will find the short answer would be "they don't" --- but much more might be said and that could take place in its own thread.

 

[Radrook]

You might want to start a thread to ask the question. I think you will find the short answer would be "they don't" --- but much more might be said and that could take place in its own thread.

Will do. Thanks for advice.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Will do. Thanks for advice.

You're very welcome.

 

[Uber Genius]

You might want to start a thread to ask the question. I think you will find the short answer would be "they don't" --- but much more might be said and that could take place in its own thread.

Unfortunately a 10-second search provided the opposite answer on catholic.com.

"Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin."

For the rest of the article see: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Even zwingli considered Mary a perpetual virgin.

However most Protestants would claim, "Mary was not perpetually a virgin." Matthew 1.24-25: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

"Until" in the passage is best interpreted as...until!

One such example is Matthew 12.46: "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Other examples include Matthew 13.55, Mark 6.3 (this one mentions sisters), John 2.12, John 7.3, John 7.5, John 7.10, Acts 1.14, 1 Corinthians 9.5, and Galatians 1.19.

But don't be fooled, each passage has to be examine in context to separate the terms brother and sister (figuratively speaking ) from literal brothers such as James who ultimately ends believing in Jesus and converting to Christianity and leading the Church in Jerusalem and writing the book of James n the NT.

Hope this helps.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Unfortunately a 10-second search provided the opposite answer on catholic.com.

"Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin."

For the rest of the article see: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Even zwingli considered Mary a perpetual virgin.

However most Protestants would claim, "Mary was not perpetually a virgin." Matthew 1.24-25: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

"Until" in the passage is best interpreted as...until!

One such example is Matthew 12.46: "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Other examples include Matthew 13.55, Mark 6.3 (this one mentions sisters), John 2.12, John 7.3, John 7.5, John 7.10, Acts 1.14, 1 Corinthians 9.5, and Galatians 1.19.

But don't be fooled, each passage has to be examine in context to separate the terms brother and sister (figuratively speaking ) from literal brothers such as James who ultimately ends believing in Jesus and converting to Christianity and leading the Church in Jerusalem and writing the book of James n the NT.

Hope this helps.

Thank you.

Yes, Catholics (along with the rest of Christianity, traditionally speaking) believe in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. And there are good reasons behind those matters of translation, but this is not the place to address them. Please feel free to start a thread in Traditional Theology if you wish to discuss them.

But the question wasn't whether or not Catholics consider the Virgin Mary to have remained a virgin. The question was whether or not they would insist the reason is because it would have been a sin. And that is the question I was answering.

Hope that helps explain my answer.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thank you.

Yes, Catholics (along with the rest of Christianity, traditionally speaking) believe in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. And there are good reasons behind those matters of translation, but this is not the place to address them. Please feel free to start a thread in Traditional Theology if you wish to discuss them.

But the question wasn't whether or not Catholics consider the Virgin Mary to have remained a virgin. The question was whether or not they would insist the reason is because it would have been a sin. And that is the question I was answering.

Hope that helps explain my answer.

And I provided an catholic resource describing why Catholics thing she was called to be ever-virgin and therefore it WOULD BE A SIN.

Secondly, I said, "However most Protestants would claim, "Mary was not perpetually a virgin." Matthew 1.24-25: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

"Until" in the passage is best interpreted as...until!

How you get, "along with the rest of Christianity," baffles me.

According to scripture it would not be a sin.

According to scripture she did have other children.

According to Catholics it is a sin because she was appointed by God to be ever-virginal.

Those are the things that I had hope you would have researched.