A refresher on the purpose for Traditional Theology

[hedrick]

I was one of the founders of the Traditional Theology forum. I think a refresher may be called for on the purpose. Many forums in CF are defined by specific traditions. TT is not. Rather, the intention is for it to be characterized by the nature and spirit of the discussion. The goal was to have a place where people from different traditions could discuss things in a friendly fashion. We hoped to avoid the kinds of arguments that occur in General Theology, etc.

It is specifically *NOT* appropriate to start a thread in TT with an attack on someone else's theology or ethics, although questions about why someone believes or does what they do are quite appropriate.

 

[Athanasias]

I was one of the founders of the Traditional Theology forum. I think a refresher may be called for on the purpose. Many forums in CF are defined by specific traditions. TT is not. Rather, the intention is for it to be characterized by the nature and spirit of the discussion. The goal was to have a place where people from different traditions could discuss things in a friendly fashion. We hoped to avoid the kinds of arguments that occur in General Theology, etc.

It is specifically *NOT* appropriate to start a thread in TT with an attack on someone else's theology or ethics, although questions about why someone believes or does what they do are quite appropriate.

Says the liberal protestant. I was not attacking anyones view in my thread. I dare everyone to read the full thread! It was answering a link to a priest who said homosexual homes are holy. All I did was quote scripture several verses showing this is not true.

 

[Charlie24]

I was one of the founders of the Traditional Theology forum. I think a refresher may be called for on the purpose. Many forums in CF are defined by specific traditions. TT is not. Rather, the intention is for it to be characterized by the nature and spirit of the discussion. The goal was to have a place where people from different traditions could discuss things in a friendly fashion. We hoped to avoid the kinds of arguments that occur in General Theology, etc.

It is specifically *NOT* appropriate to start a thread in TT with an attack on someone else's theology or ethics, although questions about why someone believes or does what they do are quite appropriate.

It's the Word of God that attacks the homosexual, not the poster when he reminds us of the Word.

The LGBT community has ignored the Word of God, it seems some so-called Christians are doing the same.

What scripture is next? Who will decide we will no longer allow a certain scripture to be posted?

I would be more concerned about insulting Gods Word than insulting those who have completely ignored it for the pleasures of sin.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, that worked well, @hedrick.

 

[zippy2006]

I was one of the founders of the Traditional Theology forum. I think a refresher may be called for on the purpose. Many forums in CF are defined by specific traditions. TT is not. Rather, the intention is for it to be characterized by the nature and spirit of the discussion. The goal was to have a place where people from different traditions could discuss things in a friendly fashion. We hoped to avoid the kinds of arguments that occur in General Theology, etc.

Honestly, this doesn't make that much sense to me. When I think of Traditional Theology I think of the definition given in the SoP. There isn't a place on CF where people are meant to discuss things in an unfriendly fashion, is there? I don't understand why friendliness is a special attribute of the Traditional Theology forum. I mean, maybe there should be a "Friendly forum," but I wouldn't call it "Traditional Theology."

 

[PloverWing]

I wasn't around for the founding of the Traditional Theology forum, but I can see a need for a place where I could ask "Anglican tradition does X, because of Y; how does that compare to the Catholic and Reformed approaches to X and Y?" That is, we're all coming from branches of the church with centuries-old roots, so "traditional", but we have differences that we might discuss politely, and thus learn from each other.

 

[hedrick]

Honestly, this doesn't make that much sense to me. When I think of Traditional Theology I think of the definition given in the SoP. There isn't a place on CF where people are meant to discuss things in an unfriendly fashion, is there? I don't understand why friendliness is a special attribute of the Traditional Theology forum. I mean, maybe there should be a "Friendly forum," but I wouldn't call it "Traditional Theology."

I wanted to call it Intelligent Theology and have the SOP ban nitwits, but for some reason I was overruled. It turned out to be really hard to define what specifically we wanted. Mostly it was substantive discussion by people with a reasonable understanding of and commitment to the major theological traditions, and respect for each other.

 

[zippy2006]

I wanted to call it Intelligent Theology and have the SOP ban nitwits, but for some reason I was overruled.

How about a forum where you are limited to one thread every two weeks and two posts per day. I call it the, "Think-Before-You-Speak Forum."

 

[chevyontheriver]

I wanted to call it Intelligent Theology and have the SOP ban nitwits, but for some reason I was overruled. It turned out to be really hard to define what specifically we wanted. Mostly it was substantive discussion by people with a reasonable understanding of and commitment to the major theological traditions, and respect for each other.

I had felt that TT was one of the few places in Christian Forums where I wouldn't have to worry about being attacked and could engage in conversations of real depth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think this has more to do with a personal protest of how someone feels about Homosexuals more than it does anything else.

 

[hedrick]

I think this has more to do with a personal protest of how someone feels about Homosexuals more than it does anything else.

Not entirely. I took a look at all the recent threads.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wasn't around for the founding of the Traditional Theology forum, but I can see a need for a place where I could ask "Anglican tradition does X, because of Y; how does that compare to the Catholic and Reformed approaches to X and Y?" That is, we're all coming from branches of the church with centuries-old roots, so "traditional", but we have differences that we might discuss politely, and thus learn from each other.

That was a large part of the intent.

We can discuss and compare - the concern was that this isn't a place to argue the other person is wrong. It's perfectly ok to disagree though. It's just not about winning arguments.

True respect for one another as persons even if we disagree is one of the main ways to accomplish this.

Sometimes TT strays a bit from this ideal. More often I think it strays from its intent as to topic - which should always center on Tradition in some form.

 

[All4Christ]

That was a large part of the intent.

We can discuss and compare - the concern was that this isn't a place to argue the other person is wrong. It's perfectly ok to disagree though. It's just not about winning arguments.

True respect for one another as persons even if we disagree is one of the main ways to accomplish this.

Sometimes TT strays a bit from this ideal. More often I think it strays from its intent as to topic - which should always center on Tradition in some form.

Very true. For anyone wanting to see exactly what the SoP says on the purpose of the forum topic wise:

Traditional Theology -- A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History; classic confessions of the faith, etc.

Definition of Traditional Christianity:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.

 

[hedrick]

FYI, I asked for confessions of faith to be added to the first sentence so it’s clear that it also covers Protestant traditions.

 

[All4Christ]

FYI, I asked for confessions of faith to be added to the first sentence so it’s clear that it also covers Protestant traditions.

I just copied this out of the Statement of Purpose.

 

[hedrick]

I just copied this out of the Statement of Purpose.

Right.i just wanted to make sure that traders understood the implications

 

[All4Christ]

Right.i just wanted to make sure that traders understood the implications

Sounds good.

It does cover classic confessions of faith and the forum is inclusive of both Protestants and non-Protestants.

It is a topical forum though and serves a specific purpose, hence the quote of the SoP. It isn’t just a “friendly version” of General Theology though respectful discussion is also a core part of the forum’s purpose.

 

[All4Christ]

Honestly, this doesn't make that much sense to me. When I think of Traditional Theology I think of the definition given in the SoP. There isn't a place on CF where people are meant to discuss things in an unfriendly fashion, is there? I don't understand why friendliness is a special attribute of the Traditional Theology forum. I mean, maybe there should be a "Friendly forum," but I wouldn't call it "Traditional Theology."

It was intended to be a place for the “respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History; classic confessions of the faith, etc.”, with the understanding that the definition used for “traditional” in this forum is defined in the SoP.

That said, it is true that this is inclusive of both non-Protestants and Protestants. Topics can cover anything that falls into the topics described in the SoP. The content of posts should also follow the SoP.

There also is an important section below the definition of Traditional Christians saying it is a non-debate forum, and that it specifically is for respectful dialogue. Unfortunately, GT often is characterized by attacks on different groups, and it is often difficult to have a discussion between traditional Christians without someone saying “that’s not Biblical”, “tradition is wrong”, etc.

Both parts of the SoP are important for the topic and the spirit of this forum.

 

[Tigger45]

It was intended to be a place for the “respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History; classic confessions of the faith, etc.”, with the understanding that the definition used for “traditional” in this forum is defined in the SoP.

That said, it is true that this is inclusive of both non-Protestants and Protestants. Topics can cover anything that falls into the topics described in the SoP. The content of posts should also follow the SoP.

There also is an important section below the definition of Traditional Christians saying it is a non-debate forum, and that it specifically is for respectful dialogue. Unfortunately, GT often is characterized by attacks on different groups, and it is often difficult to have a discussion between traditional Christians without someone saying “that’s not Biblical”, “tradition is wrong”, etc.

Both parts of the SoP are important for the topic and the spirit of this forum.

And because of ^this^ which is not only rare here within CF discussion forums but is almost nonexistent in the internet forum world. That being said most TT regulars are willing to rally to keep it that way.

 

[All4Christ]

And because of ^this^ which is not only rare here within CF discussion forums but is almost nonexistent in the internet forum world. That being said most TT regulars are willing to rally to keep it that way.

TT seems to ebb and flow with the content and style of posting. Some periods of time have been better than others.

That said, I appreciate getting to know people from various backgrounds in TT without worrying about everyone being barraged by posts attacking our respective beliefs. Some really good discussions are posted here giving insight into topics from various perspectives and experiences.