D. Allan Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Quote: No disparaging comments about other Churches or Ministries. That is a good rule. If we feel free to criticise other Churches or Ministries, it is just one step away from treating individuals the same. It can take a long time for a person to become so nice that no rules are needed .... for instance: (dAb) :-) dAb O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Woody Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Quote: The ability to recognise that we have hurt someone, and to apologise, is one of the keys to a healthy community, in my opinion. I have to reject the position that telling someone they have upset you is somehow an abusive playing of the 'victim card': no, it is simply finding a way to continue to live and work together. Thank you Bravus. I like this very much. To me ... we combine this with the suggestion of David to self police then we will have something. The more apologizes the better. They can just be a statement of admitting that we have room and desire to improve. This will help good will and trust. Next the self policing idea of David. This really needs to be done by PMs and not in public. When done in public it appreats like the school master chastizing the child. And it makes the person who is trying to help ... appear as Big Headed and acting like a God. Move it to the PMs and I feel it needs to be done with two who are of the opposite camps so it can be trusted. To be honest if certain people came to me and told me to be better with my posts ... I would not trust or listen to them. But if they came with people who I trust ... then I would be more likely to hear. Personally I want to find more trust and respect in the people I interact with. I have gone on too long with mistrust and anger at people. I am tired of it. I have been hurt by several here. But I want to trust them and I want to go on a NEW path. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
olger Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 I believe it would be helpful if everybody actually knew each other. I realize that that may not be possible, but I have noted with interest, CA get-togethers. That is a good way of attaching a face to a screen handle. Gail's meet-the-members is useful, yet still virtual reality. It is also helpful when we as people don't attach too much personal worth to our opinions. The fact that someone disagrees with my opinion or position doesn't need to mean wholesale rejection of me (or them). It's time we got over that. Our opinions will be heard if they are opinions worth listening to. I believe that we need to be accountable to one another, and be willing to discuss things privately that might add a burden to those who are watching uneasily. Illustration: Last year while shopping in a grocery store, a plump matron shouted loudly at her child "JUNIOR YOU STUPID BRAT, PUT THAT DOWN AND GET OVER HERE!!!" Instantly, the whole store went silent (especially those who are named after their fathers--like me). In that moment, each of us shoppers were united in negative thoughts - extreme embarrassment, pity for Jr., and probably disdain for mother. What would Club Adventist be like if we were united in hope, encouragement, and truth? Others would want to come and join in. Ready & willing, Gerry C. Wagoner "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
David Koot Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Ahem. As for the incorrigibles . . . must we REALLY give them a venue? Consider this a plug for the virtues of civilized exchange of ideas. Ever since reading the Federalist Papers, some decades ago, I have been impressed and interested in the concept of civilized, dispassionate discussion when it comes to important issues. Such antique virtues would seem most desirable in a discussion forum.
Stan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Posted July 13, 2007 Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen What must not happen, is to comment or tear apart someone else's statement in this thread Read repeated as needed.. Repeat reading as needed. Remember, everyone here is a volunteer, or is here voluntarily If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 It is also helpful when we as people don't attach too much personal worth to our opinions. The fact that someone disagrees with my opinion or position doesn't need to mean wholesale rejection of me (or them). It's time we got over that. Our opinions will be heard if they are opinions worth listening to. Great point. It's like if someone mistreats us, we don't need to feel it is necessarily because of something we said or did. It often just means the other person has a personal problem of some kind. Just so, a rejection of an idea or belief is not necessarily a reflection on that idea or belief. It may well mean the other person has issues or maybe that they take to new concepts very slowly. I would like to suggest two things: We have photos of ourselves that people can see (if we choose to participate in this) because sometimes it helps others to see us as real people (rather than just abstract words on a screen) if they can see our smile or twinkle in the eye. Keep this thread up all the time so that people can come to it and voice concerns on this subject whenever they feel the need. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 Ahem. As for the incorrigibles . . . must we REALLY give them a venue? Consider this a plug for the virtues of civilized exchange of ideas. Ever since reading the Federalist Papers, some decades ago, I have been impressed and interested in the concept of civilized, dispassionate discussion when it comes to important issues. Such antique virtues would seem most desirable in a discussion forum. I understand. Love reading those papers myself, Dave. By the way, you ever read the anti-Federalist papers. They have those in a book too, and just as well worth reading. Some great Americans wrote against the Federalists, such as Robert E. Lee's grandfather, Lighthorse, and other signers of the Declaration of Independence. I'd have been a Federalist but I do enjoy reading both sides of that issue as well as others. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted July 13, 2007 Members Posted July 13, 2007 the incorrigibles????? eh???? sorry..just my bizarre sense of humor breaking through. I apologize to those who were offended by this smilie. Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 the incorrigibles????? eh???? sorry..just my bizarre sense of humor breaking through. I apologize to those who were offended by this smilie. Just in case someone wonders where that came from, here's how: David Koot: Okay, one more proposed guideline: a 'boor-ban.' No boors or boorish behavior allowed lol. John 317: Hey how about a thread just for the "boors" who believe they can't change and don't want to change? Where I work we have some teenagers who like to be slapped around a little. So I know how this works. For them we have the boxing program. Others don't even like to be yelled at. 'Course those are always yelling at other people-- But we try to treat them with due respect even though they often don't do the same toward others. David Koot: Ahem. As for the incorrigibles . . . must we REALLY give them a venue? Consider this a plug for the virtues of civilized exchange of ideas. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
David Koot Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 [Robert E. Lee's grandfather, Lighthorse Indeed. 'Light horse Harry' Lee, the quintessential Virginian. I also find it interesting that R.E. Lee displayed enough of dad's impulsiveness to make a fatal error at Gettysburg (over the remonstrances of level-headed James Longstreet, a first-rate tactician.) Fascinating how history turns upon one man's decisions! Dave
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 13, 2007 Administrators Posted July 13, 2007 Actually, I wish there would be more use of smilies. It is a way to overcome the problems of emotionless text. To assume a dispassionate discourse is to rob the participants of their humanity. Many feel quite passionate about certain issues and conveying that is a delicate balancing act in this kind of format that requires perhaps more intense words. Emotions are very much a part of expression and it is said that as much as 70% of communication is non-verbal. Using only text in this format omits most of that non-verbal communication. Smilies tend to help restore that bit of humanity to our communications. The other alternative is to allow people to use emotive words... which unfortunately seem to cause offense... "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 13, 2007 Administrators Posted July 13, 2007 Here is a set of study/discussion ground rules that I have used with my small group. They are from part of the Discipling program that proved useful to temper our discussions. I think some of these principles could perhaps be useful here. Principles of Bible Study 1. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the words of the Bible tell us about that Word. Therefore, when we study the words of the Bible we always look behind, in and through those words for God’s Word – Jesus Christ. 2. No Christian has a monopoly on understanding either God’s Word or the words of the Scripture. This includes biblical scholars and the most unlearned Christian. All of us must listen to one another as we seek to understand the richness of God’s gifts. 3. We must assume everyone has Christian integrity and not accuse one another of being unchristian, no matter how unusual are the opinions. 4. We must further assume that we will arrive at different understandings of portions of Scripture and that that will not disturb God as much as it does some of us. 5. Few of us will know Hebrew or Greek, and we therefore need to use a variety of English versions to try to understand the text. 6. While we accept our differences, we do not feel that those differences are unimportant, or that they should be ignored or treated as if they did not matter. 7. Different biblical understandings can remain among us, but we can still be warm Christian friends. In fact, as we grow to better understand our differences, we can grow in our appreciation of one another. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Moderators Bravus Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 In terms of 'the incorrigibles', though, I suspect we each have our own little mental lists, or could construct them fairly easily... but that they're not the same. And in fact, some of the people on my list you'd miss if the hammer fell on them, and vice versa. Truth is important
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 Generally speaking, an excellent post, IMHO, Tom. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
ChildOfGod4Ever Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Hmm... One thing that's kind of bothering me is the idea that that the mean people can be punished for breaking the rules and that the sensitive people had better stay away from the mean people if they want to have a good time here. Mainly because I think all people can learn to work with each other, and can also be worked with when they are still learning... I'd like to see two icons that people can choose from under the place where they select an avatar. One icon is a fiery-flame (for the boorish camp) and the other is a teddy-bear (for the sensitive/civilized camp). The idea is that the "boors" can agree to tone down what they say to the "sensitive" people, and the "sensitive" people can agree to try to be a bit more understanding toward the boors, who have already agreed to tone it down when directly addressing the sensitive people. This way, all can participate in a discussion, all can show each other some amount of respect and dignity, and so forth. As for guidelines for the boors when responding to the sensitive people, they need to learn to stick to the subject and not make comments about the people they are responding to. As for guidelines for the sensitive people when responding to the boors, they need to learn to ask the boors "Why did you say...?" in order to clarify the reasons for things they took offense to, or just things they didn't understand in general. As for not attacking other churches/ministries, I don't think there would be much room for them to be attacked if we also made it our mission as members to go to their message boards and make friends with them; if we learned to share a broader discourse with them in a "shared forum section" that would be set aside just for that purpose. Personally, I don't think anyone, even someone who might come along and flood this place with anti-Adventist hate-language should be asked to leave this forum. Nor do I think that someone who is "just too sensitive" for our taste should be told "you can leave anytime..." as if they are expendable and have no real value here. Rather, I think it's a matter of people owning up to their personalities by choosing an icon upon signing up, and agreeing to also find ways to respect people from "the other camp." And even if they break that agreement, I don't think they should be banned. Rather, I think they should be told upon signing up that if they are struggling to get along with others here, then certain people are available (who are regulars) who will be glad to be "PM Accountability Partners," should they choose to ask for one because they are struggling to know how to follow the guidelines they agreed to. And we should have people who are chosen (elected perhaps?) as being the kind of sane, trustworthy individuals who can offer their free 2 cents worth to those who are struggling to get along. I don't believe however that such people should feel free to offer their services on the fly, by starting PMs or in public threads either, if they see "misconduct," simply because, well, at least in my view, that's just rude. I think such services should be "upon request only" yet all members should be made aware that that's available, if it become available. I believe that such mentoring would help enable everyone from both camps to learn to get along with each other. Oh, and I have one other suggestion: the ability to edit a post after a person has moved on to another page and then comes back to it later. Sometimes a person doesn't realize they've been rude to someone else until even a day later. I do like how a person can mark down the reason for their editing. Anyway, I do believe in "do overs" as well as apologies and self-humbling before the masses, should that become necessary (and only when it's sincere). To me, that's what the Gospel is really all about. I also do like the suggestion of checking a box when starting a new thread, that would enable everyone who comes to it to know ahead of time that the primary purpose of the discussion is either an "all out war of viewpoints in a lively discussion, no holds barred," a "happy, happy, feel good discussion," or a "presentation/sermonette." Leaving this blank would just mean that it's open to everyone, and people can come and go as they please, and whatever happens happens. I think having fair warning about the expected type of discussion would greatly help everyone here. Every soul is Priceless and worth not only the life of our Messiah, but also worth the effort it takes to show Him to the souls who come here to this board. So, in truth, I'm personally against the idea of allowing anyone to be banned, or to be intentionally made to feel unwelcome if they don't do what we want or like what they see. To me, that's just not the Kingdom, nor what it's founded on. I do believe there should be better ways of dealing with people who either misunderstand or have been misunderstood. Oh, and I'd like to suggest another icon... A teddy-bear holding a flower, but the flower-head is actually some small flames. For those of us with a split-personality :D The only failing of the human spirit is in not knowing Who's you truly are, and that the Love is real. Love fearlessly.
Moderators Bravus Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 +1 on the idea of being able to edit our posts. I know it causes potential problems in some ways, but I also know that I have posted things in the heat of the moment in the past that made me very ashamed later, but that it was too late to take back by editing the post. Sure, it'd be better if we never posted those posts in the first place, but as the old Sandy Patti song goes "He's still workin' on me..." Truth is important
Woody Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Tom ... Thank you for an excellent post. I really like "Principles of Bible Study". May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 13, 2007 Administrators Posted July 13, 2007 I found those principles so useful in small groups to set the tone and encourage realistic tolerance of divergent ideas. It helped create an atmosphere of openness and honesty. I am especially impressed by #4. Sometimes it's too easy to confuse our fervor in promoting and defending our perspective and agenda with God's perspective and agenda. It puts in perspective, that even Biblical topics we may get exercised about, may not really be even in God's top 10 priorities. I dare say that almost all of the hot button issues over which we debate, argue and ultimately divide up the body of Christ, are not the ones God sees as a priority, or even perhaps all that essential. Tom "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Stan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Posted July 13, 2007 re mean people.... I doubt if there is one person here who views there posting as mean.. or unChristian... Bravus hinted at that, but I think he is wrong... : LOL One of the problems with a text only relationship, is that we view all of the persons other posts (in our minds eye) when we view a current one, it can be hard for some to get past that. If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
Dr. Shane Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I think Bevin had suggested before that there be sections where disagreement is not allowed. Those would be "safe" sections. Then there could be sections that are "open" sections where debate is allowed. Perhaps it is not the ideal solution but there may not be any ideal solution either. Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
Amelia Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 We tried sectioning in the past. I believe the problem with that was there was no audience and that is where certain aspects of our community thrive. <p><span style="color:#0000FF;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">"Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you."</span></span> Eph 4:29</span><br><br><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/gizmotimetemp_both/US/OR/Fairview.gif" alt="Fairview.gif"> Fairview Or</p>
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 Debate should be allowed on almost all threads, except for a few special ones, but in any thread, certain basic rules need to be followed and enforced. As we've mentioned before, comments and criticisms need to be issue-related and not about personalities. Also if someone says they are offended by a personal comment or criticism, those kinds of comments or criticisms should not continue. We have visitors on these threads, and some of those have told me they don't want to become members or participate in threads because of the way some posters are "abused" or "harrassed" (their words). So I expect that once we make CA a place where people feel safe, we will see a rise in the number of people wanting to join us. Let's get ready to make them feel welcome. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woody Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Quote: Also if someone says they are offended by a personal comment or criticism, those kinds of comments or criticisms should not continue. Personally I don't feel this is enough. I think that we as Christians have an obligation to make things right. If we have offended someone intentionally or unintentionally we need to apologize and make things right. Let me give you an example. If I called someone the "Devil". It is not good enough to just go on and not do it again. The "deed" needs to be made right. The person needs to say he is sorry and intends to do better by not calling someone the "Devil" again. Confess. Say that you intend to improve. This is healthy. Don't you agree? May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Amelia Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Thou shalt not heep criticism on another and then cry foul when it is heeped upon thou. <p><span style="color:#0000FF;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">"Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you."</span></span> Eph 4:29</span><br><br><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/gizmotimetemp_both/US/OR/Fairview.gif" alt="Fairview.gif"> Fairview Or</p>
Moderators John317 Posted July 13, 2007 Moderators Posted July 13, 2007 Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen What must not happen, is to comment or tear apart someone else's statement in this thread Read repeated as needed.. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts