 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Poll Question: Does open debate help the openness | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | adiaphora
(Community Owner)
02/12/01 6:43 PM
Poll Question: Does open debate help the openness debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity Today recently discussed the role of the internet in the openness debate in an artible called, "Did Open Debate Help the Openness Debate?" in their February 19, 2001 Special Technology Issue. They say, "people at the epicenter of the 'open theism' debate are learning first-hand the positive and negative power of electronic communication." What do you see as some of the positive and negative aspects of electronic communication in this debate?
Pick a response below that best represents your overall opinion of the role the internet has played in the theological debate surrounding the open view.
Blessings,
~ a d i a p h o r a
very helpful resource
interesting & informative
doesn't make a difference
boring waste of time
very harmful resource
View Poll Results
BBBCanada
02/14/01 3:28 PM
Poll Question: Does open debate help the openness debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adiaphora, a few things.
1. Are they saying in order for us to communicate our view that we *require* the Internet? I haven’t read the article. We rely on the Internet more and more. Prior to it, our view wasn’t moving as quickly. Obviously, it is moving at light speed with the advent of the web. If it is to stay in the game, yes, openness views will need the Internet.
2. Stats show the Internet is used mostly for religious purposes. So the open view would be included in that.
3. It is positive, because it takes theology out of the “ivory towers,” that is, theological institutions. But don’t expect a degree ok? Anyhoo, theology should be done within the whole church, not outside of it and not *only* with a certain few specialists. Of course, I am highly Protestant in this respect. Yes, we need the specialists, they are very important, but just as we should not exclude women in theological endeavors, as there is so much that they can bring to the theological round table, we should not think the “laity” cannot contribute as well.
4. What we have on these boards is rigorous debate. That’s healthy. Not dangerous. I wish the bigwigs in the towers would recognize this. Just as the “common” people needed God’s Word made accessible to them (church history) so they need theological endeavor as well.
5. A negative, I would estimate would be that it is not on the “printed page.” Ideas, gain some amount of legitimacy when they are finally committed to paper or a “hard copy.” However, unlike T.V., which makes use of images and therefore, the person lies in a vegetative state cognitively, the internet uses words, which require exponentially greater neurological activity (interpreted, work, labor and skill). You know what they say? Use it or lose it.
6. Also, let us not think too highly of any electronic medium for “dispensing with” the Gospel or derivative theologies. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind when he commissioned us. Relationships people! Relationships! That’s why I think Modes and GDG are right on the money when they defined sinning against God as sinning against another person, and vice versa.
7. The Internet is growing in many different ways. The consensus is not in as to what changes, for good or bad, it will ultimately have for society (ies). Although there are some warnings signs in the making. Let’s not be too hasty just yet.
Brandon
My two cents worth. Ching!!
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|