«Even if that someone teaches wrongly — why canâ $ ™ t casual
conversation over theology be discussed without it having to defame somone?»
Even if that someone teaches wrongly — why can't casual
conversation over theology be discussed without it having to defame somone?
Not exact matches
I'd take a deep / meaningful
conversation with a human being (of any faith / non-faith)
over a volume of systematic
theology any day.
A
conversation that began discussing the lack of theological knowledge, in the United States (not American, that is a collection of continents), turned into a discusion about the lackings of your
theology, or someone elses, or how superior one type of
theology is
over the other.
Conversations in Religion &
Theology is the journal of the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, and the current issue is largely given
over to responses to a book about your scribe that is less than complimentary.
We don't always agree on
theology or politics, (the 2016 election promises to raise the pitch of our dinner
conversations a few decibels), but my parents have always prioritized maintaining our relationship
over maintaining ideological uniformity.
Through collecting and reworking many of his previously published articles, Ford will attempt in this new book to formulate the requisite complementary natural
theology for Whitehead's cosmology in historical
conversation with, and in dialectical opposition to, a number of contrasting perspectives on creativity, temporality, immutability, theodicy, and technical (internal) problems in process metaphysics put forth by Robert Neville, Norris Clarke, Donald Sherburne, and other colleagues
over the years.