-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This oughta be a good one--:-)
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
Free, public debates are a necessary element of keeping public intellect sharp and stimulated. This seems to me a good and healthy initiative.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I think it could be interesting to hear the differing viewpoints on this.
But it will go over the head of anyone who says "ya"..........
As a field of study, I think theology should be restricted to the historical.
As a matter of modern life, I think theology is a self-defensive attempt to distract people from the massive inherent flaws in most (all?), the major religions.
Lipstick on a pig
As a matter of modern life, I think theology is a self-defensive attempt to distract people from the massive inherent flaws in most (all?), the major religions.
Lipstick on a pig
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think the word "debate" used in the title of the article is misleading as I think it's more likely an exchange of ideas. The Catholic and Lutheran churches did the same thing about 3 decades ago, and it helped to bring about a greater understanding and appreciation of each other.
Altfish
Veteran Member
I think Atheists should also be included
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that.
Surprisingly, I'm not so sure. Atheist thought is so very different from theist thinking that I think it would be jarring. Rather like trying to hold a summit on whether peach pie is tastier than blueberry.
But a sharp, stimulated public threatens the social hierarchy. Throughout history the upper classes have striven to keep the masses in the dark and unaware of the sources of their poverty.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I can't see why this topic would benefit from an atheist perspective. It's a theology discussion on the bible verse about Peter being the rock on which Christ would build his church. What would an atheist perspective bring to that subject?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
God should be invited as well and say a few words.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
How about religious differences? Agreed to keep public (masses) in the dark for a long time -- even now -- so these different divisions among those who claim to believe in Christ, well, let's see how they settle it.
I guess in some people's minds it's no big deal.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, it could be interesting because,:I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that.
"On November 22, the Vatican will host a debate in St. Peter's Basilica between a Catholic, a Protestant and an Orthodox theologian on the primacy of Peter, that is, on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Christian confessions."
Again, if there is a conclusion as to the "primacy of Peter," or the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, well, we'll see if and how they agree or disagree.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Reality
exchemist
Veteran Member
That's stupid. The debate is about the theological meaning of a bible passage. If someone thinks they are contributing by saying "it's all a load of old codswallop", that is hijacking the debate onto another topic, viz. whether or not there is any truth in Christianity, or in religions more generally.
Altfish
Veteran Member
It was meant to be a stupid/funny response.
Chill out
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It would have to be a very specific atheist. An atheistic biblical scholar could have some meaningful contribution. But the average atheist off the street such as any of us here probably would not have much to add to the conversation.