Jump to content

Menu

WishboneDawn

Members
  • Posts

    7,709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WishboneDawn

  1. Any IB Theory of Knowledge text. The more my daughter and I explore this the more I can't believe this isn't something most Classical homeschoolers use. We talk about critical thinking, philosophy, teach logic and rhetoric and yet the big kahuna, the umbrella over those things barely gets a mention here.
  2. It's sort of funny because it's often a toss up as to exactly what he's most famous for here: that he's an actor, he's Donald Sutherland's son, or that he's Tommy Douglas' grandson. Poor guy. :-)
  3. Just an aside, the man who we Canadians credit for starting health care was Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister.
  4. I apologize. I did not intend it that way. It was awkwardly worded and then further mangling by my Swype keyboard made it seem worse. I should have learned by now that posting from my phone is a bad idea. My first paragraph was in response to you, The "small-minded and self-congratulatory" comments were meant for those the OP mentioned in her first paragraph. I don't think saying there's a moral element to the choice to quit is small-minded, I think the judgement experienced by the OP are. There may be a moral element to the choice to smoke/quit smoking for some (I'm not sure I'd allow that that is always the case) but to judge people because they smoke or because they're fat or have cancer or asthma...That's when someone goes into the territory of small-mindedness. I don't think that's what you're doing.
  5. My apologies for contributing to the derail, Lexi.
  6. What about an online course? Maybe he needs to have his assumptions about what is fine challenged by someone other then his mother in order for him to understand?
  7. My husband doesn't smoke anymore but when he did he possessed the same strength of character and same set of morals as after he quit. You may ultimately be right in that it points to some small character flaw but to my mind there's no point in making a moral issue of it. It certainly small minded and self-congratulatory to assume that whether a person smokes our not tells you anything useful about their character or means they are somehow less then you by some measure as the OP relating.
  8. That is in fact how the Queen is already known in Canada. We beat you guys to that one!
  9. That's awesome. :D And it reminds me of an EFM meeting... This was a few years back. Our group was led by my male minister and had, I think, only one other guy at the time. There were several ministers taking the course and then we had the Bishop of our diocese visit us this one day. This was the day where all of my ideas about ministers and bishops being somehow apart from and above regular folks got exploded real good. We did theological reflection. Someone told a story, we explored thoughts and feelings, came up with a metaphor. The metaphor was passing a woman your sweater to wear around her waist when you notice she's having her period and, er, leaking. Lay people, ministers and bishop all thoroughly explored the metaphor. The guys got a very in depth education that day about all things related to menstration. And we came out of it finding a piece of scripture that spoke to that metaphor. My minister maintains that theology tends to get a lot earthier when there's a majority of women, Bishop, minister or whatever. :) So we discussed having our periods with our bishop and did some excellent theological work because of it. I think that's an awesome argument for ordaining women right there. :D
  10. It is overly simplified and I am biased. My sympathy is limited for those who choose to break the communion and then also want to take church property with them. The amount of money spent in litigation is, to me, pretty easy to understand. It should be clear to those congregations considering leaving the communion that they can't take CoE property with them. It could be debated here. It need someone on the other side of the fence though since, as you pointed out, I'm not presenting a fair and balanced view. I'm pretty biased. ETA: No, let's not debate it here. There's enough info on the internet for any that are curious. And it would seriously cramp my style in this thread. :D Besides, I might not win the debate and THAT can not be allowed to happen.
  11. Please forget I used the term historical document. I'm face palming right now. Ancient documents, Ancient stories...Something along that line. In was thinking historical in a slightly different sense and wasn't thinking about putting it and documents together would imply. I'm sure, but I asked you the question. I'm talking about methods for evaluating ancient (not historical!!! Sorry again!) documents. I'm sticking to that narrow piece of the pie for the time being. There are very well established methods for examining the Bible and there's a whole community of scholars out there for a person to check their opinions against. Many, if not most, are secular folks who are playing by well established rules and not inserting faith into the equation. That's something separate and apart from my liberal theology. I have no idea who "my" scholars are supposed to be. This is why I wonder about what you think that I think about the Bible. I spent a few years on the old Internet Infidels forum because they had excellent scholars there and my views on the Bible, on authorship and historical context and the like were pretty much in line with most of the folks there. When I'm looking for information I tend to go to secular academic sources, not apologetic ones. I could lose faith tommorrow (and I seriously could, I'm a serial teeterer) and my view on the Bible would be pretty much the same, sans a little bit of faith. So, does being a person of faith justify an unreasoned and irrational approach? You don't need to go into the Holy Ghost. That's Teannika's matter. I think you would consider that irrational anyway. I didn't ask what value it held for you, I asked what you thought that I think of the Bible because I think that colours the discussion with your talk of faith and "my" scholars. Sorry for not doing the quotes properly. I could last week but they've gone wonky on me.
  12. She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It's mostly a ceremonial and symbolic role from what I gather and seems to have been established mostly to keep Roman Catholic paws off the new CoE way back in Herny VIII's day. She's additionally known as the Defender of the Faith in much of the Commonwealth although what that means varies. We don't have a state religion in Canada so functionally it's more Defender of Faith here. Some commonwealth countries don't give her that title at all. The effective head of the church, however, is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The last one, Rowan Williams, was primarily known for his spooky eyebrows. The current one is...Someone. I'm sure of that. Ah, Justin Welby. No, I'm not googling all this as I type. Okay, I am, but that's allowed. Anyhow, the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't anything like the pope. I could call him an arsehat and no one would make an issue of it. My minister might wonder why I was stealing his bit though...Communion is paramount, not a single personality, however pointy his eyebrows. Rowan did rock the Royal Wedding though.
  13. We've had homemade bread. Can't escape crumbs there. :) I'm hoping that one day cheesecake is an acceptable host, can't see it though. :crying:
  14. We're the Church of England. We tend to stay away from things religious. :D
  15. The real issue is the ordination of homosexuals and ultimately, women. That's underneath those wanting to leave and it's still there, just that there's nothing to really spark debate and bring it to the surface right now. As far as the property issue, I'm not aware of any congregation that got to keep the building. It's pretty simple, the diocese owns the buildings, congregations don't.
  16. Write down dates, a save emails and voicemails and start documenting. Then, when this is over, complain to his brokerage and professional organization.
  17. And there you've sort of recognized my limits. I'm first and foremost a child of a secular country and then later in life a member of a rather unexciting Christian denomination that, at least in my diocese, puts a value on information and education. To the point that I can't really get the way you separated the Bible from information and education in that sentence as if its somehow exempt and gets a free pass. ETA: Sorry, I do get what you're saying though. Another ETA: You do realize that if you ever come to Nova Scotia and don't stop in for tea and cheesecake I'll be highly offended. :p
  18. It's not the ethically problematic bit that bothers me. The Bible is full of ethically troubling stuff and no interpretation can white wash it or explain it away (have I ever asserted otherwise?). But the Bible is a collection of historical documents subject to the same tools of historical and literary criticism of every other historical document. If I picked through the Declaration of Independence cherry picking words and quotes to assert that the US was founded by Martians you would be right to call me out on that. Not because you thought my conclusion was false but because the method was bad. Does being a Christian, having faith, justify a bad method? Does Teannika get a pass that no secular reader would? Should we be fine with such methods of interpretation when we have decades upon decades of work by critics, scholars and historians that offer a more reasoned and rational approach? And again, I'm not arguing that it's her unethical conclusion that makes her wrong (although I can allow it might have looked like that, sorry). Good method doesn't ensure the "right" or "proper" reading or even agreement. But no one gets a pass because they are a fellow Christian. I sometimes wonder what you think I think of the Bible and how it colours your responses to me.
  19. It was a metaphor and metaphors have their limits. I'm not going to argue my interpretation is more right but I could certainly argue it's better informed and educated. That's no guarantee I'm right however.
  20. This is all assuming a Christian reading of the OT in which prophecies are seen as being about telling the future. But the prophets were addressing the specific circumstances of their time and providing commentary and possible consequences of that. Straighten up or some young women is going to have a son who will take the throne dude. Which is often what happens with bad kings, no? Never mind that those writing the NT knew their OT and could tailor their story match. But these are ideas that won't make a dent because they require a shift to appreciate. You have to read the OT without your Christian blinders. You have to look from the past forward rather then from now back into the past. You have to adopt the perspective of a historian our critic and that's something that's actively warned against in some Christian circles.
  21. Wow. We just have cheap wine. I'm going to have to have a talk with the minister.
  22. I think it's sad but telling that challenges are viewed as people turning against her rather then opportunities to explore other POVs.
×
×
  • Create New...