Times, they are a changin' More Guidelines Need Here

[Woody]

(e)]That is exactly "it" Charis! All of us have different languages. Each of us speaks a language uniquely his or her own.

Perhaps, that is the most difficult aspect of on-line communication. What is taken by one to mean a certain thing, was never intended by the other as such.

Thank you Chris ... This is why we should ask clarifying questions rather than declaring someone to be of the DEVIL just because of a perceived difference in Biblical interpretation.

And the other thing is that WHEN we have unintentionally hurt someone's feelings ... we should apologize.

[pacunurse30]

I think some of us need to learn when to just stop. I come to this site pretty regularly, but refrain from posting now because a lot of it just isn't fruitful. There is a lot of back and forth arguing, people trying to out wit each other by making their posts sound overly eloquent (and sometimes difficult to read or understand), and just downright nastiness. If you've made your point once, and the other person disagrees, then let it go! Move on to another topic and leave that one alone. Sometimes I won't even comment anymore in certain discussions because of the direction it has taken.

[Amelia]

Quote:

people trying to out wit each other by making their posts sound overly eloquent (and sometimes difficult to read or understand),

[David Koot]

So..... any one else get the feeling this made it worse?

Seems to me that communication and discussion is very important. If you are talking about a family unit or similar group of people, talking about concerns would seem essential. Unless one is thinking of a dysfunctional family unit. In such a setting, sharing concerns may result in an explosion and fragmentation of the family. But, such a situation is unhealthy, and surely steps should be taken to remedy it.

Dave

[Bravus]

This kinda illustrates the difficulties, though: I don't disagree with pacunurse, but as an academic sometimes I do find it useful or necessary to use big words or complicated ideas. I'm absolutely not doing it to put anyone down or make them feel bad, I just think it's the clearest and most efficient way to communicate what I want to say at the time... and I'll usually only do that in response to someone who is speaking in the same vein. In general I agree that keeping our speech simple and accessible is best.

So I find myself thinking 'line by line analysis is inappropriate and rude - except when it isn't' and likewise 'using big words and convoluted logic is rude and inappropriate - except when it isn't'.

I find I agree completely with the approach John317 has outlined of being willing to apologise and stop when someone lets us know they've been hurt or upset by what we wrote or how we wrote it. After all, we apologise when we step on someone's toe in the street whether or not we meant to do so (and hopefully we never mean to) and even if it was their fault that we stepped on their toe. Can't require it of others but I'll expect it from myself.

[David Koot]

Well, after reading the posts, with different viewpoints, it seems to me that one solution could be to provide different venues. Actually, isn't this already being done? The Bible and Theology sections are described as follows:

"Serious discussion here, sometimes not serious. Let others explore your ideas while you explore theirs"

That certainly sounds clear enough. Then, those who post in those forums can expect serious, in-depth discussion, and to explore ideas and have their ideas explored. That is one interest group.

Then, there is townhall, and a variety of other forums which seem to serve various purposes and attract interest groups. Not all of them appear to be focused on serious, in-depth study of ideas. Others may choose to post in those forums, who may not be into the level of discussion and digging which characterize the theology forums.

"Live and let live." Let those who are interested in serious study have the opportunity to do so. Let others who are interested in other things also have the opportunity to do so. Provide different venues for each group. Don't try to make everyone fit into one shape of hole. Something that church planting experts emphasize now is not to try to please everyone in the same service. Alternatively, have different focus groups on the same campus. Same principle, applied online here.

Dave

[olger]

It might also be well to have a system to discipline those who are given to public clamor. First, warn them. Then place a small x after their name. The earning of a second x could mean a mandatory 30-day suspension (or week, or whatever length of time we agree on).

The passing of time should also erase an x by a name. Say 30-days of good behavior. Just some thoughts..

olger

[David Koot]

Yes, I think THAT is a key issue at this point. Uniform enforcement of forum conventions. I suspect--without knowing, this only a hunch--that may be a factor in some leaving. That is, if some of those conventions are enforced even-handedly as they should be, and certain individuals are not accustomed to that, they take issue with that, take their toys and leave. But, the forum will be a better place for all, will be known as a safe AND interesting place, and will have the opportunity to REALLY grow.

Dave

[there buster]

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

Breaking the Silence on an Abuse Within the Church That Leaves Christians Feeling "Used," Manipulated and Shamed.

Churches are meant to be safe places where spiritual leaders help and equip the members for the work of service. There are some churches, however, where leaders use their spiritual authority to control and dominate others, attempting to meet their own needs for importance, power, intimacy or spiritual gratification. Through the subtle use of the right "spiritual" words, church members are manipulated or shamed into certain behaviors or performance that ensnares in legalism, guilt and begrudging service.

This is spiritual abuse, and the results can be shattering. Deeply ingrained spiritual codes of written and unwritten rules control and condemn, wounding believers' spirits and keeping them from the grace and joy of God's kingdom. Believers find themselves enslaved to a system, a leader, a standard of performance that saps true spiritual life.

This is a message for Christians who feel they are spiritually abused and for those who might be causing it.

Toxic Faith When religion becomes a means to avoid or control life, it becomes toxic. Those who possess a toxic faith have stepped across the line from a balanced perspective of God to an unbalanced faith in a weak, powerless or uncaring God. They seek a God to fix every mess, prevent every hurt, and mend every conflict.

Toxic Faith distinguishes between a healthy faith and a misguided religiosity that traps believers in an addictive practice of religion. It shows how unbalanced ministries, misguided churches, and unscrupulous leaders can lead their followers away from God and into a desolate experience of religion that drives many to despair.

-------------------

Two toxic faiths dominate CA. No one intended that it happen, this is not blaming the founder. For a variety of reasons, it just happened.

[Neil D]

Wow! I am not sure that I need to weigh in on this....espeically coming after one who, when you cross his political idea, makes you feel like dirt.

Of course, I am no innocent either...having cause 2 people that I know of to leave [sorry to take the 'honors' away from you, Amelia]...one of which still lurks here [can we still say that she left?], and posts against me when I do something bad. And I have advocated for someone to be allowed to stay, when the man Stan suggested that this person might do better in another BBS.

Having gone thru the posts on this thread, I have a few things that I think need to be brought out.....

First, as much as you all would like the "other guy" to get his come-up-ance for all his 'nasty' posts...THE TRUTH of the matter is ...it aint about him or her...It's about me, ourselves and how we respond to what we see. When something bother us, that should be our first clue...about ourselves. It's about us, not them...And how you respond to what you see, talks volumes about you...not them. Take it from someone who has actively driven 2 people away....and in some ways regrets it...and in other ways don't regret it.

Another thing-How you respond to rude people tells far more about you than about them....Granted, there are the religiously rude people who frequent this BBS for the purpose of setting others straight. God have mercy on thier souls...but that doesn't mean that I have to be gentle toward them either...In this toneless enviroment, I have to be careful of what I say, and what I project. The rule from Shane is very good...take a step away from the keyboard and look at what you are about to post. If it is a kneejerk reaction, best to go away for a day or two and then come back and address the issue...You do have some options when coming back to the issue..PMing is a good thing...

Someone [Christiane?] said that this was a place for exchange of ideas, bible study and a few other things, but the last one item was fun....

Well, I disagree with the order of that list and any other list that doesn't have fun listed as number one activity on this board. If you are here for bible study first, well, there are forum for that here on this BBS...but I will argue that your primary reason is fun before it is bible study...and bible study is a close 2nd....

And, sadly, I must report that it is 'fun' to argue...Granted, it is serious fun, but nevertheless, it is fun...And the more I think of it, the more I agree [was it you David?]...Heaven will be filled with arguers...arguing divergent views and having fun doing so...Granted, there should be rules for arguing so as to avoid name calling and such...That is why politics and Religion are not for the faint of heart.

Gotta go, but I will be back to look more at this issue...

[John317]

...And the more I think of it, the more I agree [was it you David?]...Heaven will be filled with arguers...arguing divergent views and having fun doing so...Granted, there should be rules for arguing so as to avoid name calling and such...That is why politics and Religion are not for the faint of heart.

David might have said something like that too. I didn't say heaven would be filled with arguers. I said that no doubt people will not all agree on every detail about everything, because we will all of course still be individuals with individual preferences and opinions. Yet that is far from "arguing" in the sense in which we are accustomed to arguing here on earth.

For one thing they (we, who are getting practice doing it here, hopefully) will do it with love. We won't need someone listening in to tell us that something we've said is wrong. The law of love-- the whole law of God-- will be written on our minds and hearts. Therefore, when we act out the law, we will be merely acting out our own natures and not rules imposed on us from without.

A big difference between those in heaven and those on the earth now will be that if we are in heaven, we will be seeking the good of others and not our own. In short, we will be just like Jesus. And that, really, will make all the difference.

[cricket]

First, as much as you all would like the "other guy" to get his come-up-ance for all his 'nasty' posts...THE TRUTH of the matter is ...it aint about him or her...It's about me, ourselves and how we respond to what we see. When something bother us, that should be our first clue...about ourselves. It's about us, not them...And how you respond to what you see, talks volumes about you...not them. Take it from someone who has actively driven 2 people away....and in some ways regrets it...and in other ways don't regret it.

These words deserve to be repeated over and over and over! Thank you, Neil for putting it so plainly.

As for the list of what this forum is...I don't recall making a list, but I tend to agree...forums should be fun! When we have fun, we feel safe. It is only when we feel safe that we can grow.

[Neil D]

Quote:

When we have fun, we feel safe. It is only when we feel safe that we can grow.

No truer words could be spoken....Thanks

[Amelia]

Wise words Chrys and Neil.

[David Koot]

Two toxic faiths dominate CA.

Neither faith is toxic in and of itself. And, indeed, one can think of a number of exponents of either faith, who are not toxic nor are their presentations toxic. If anything or anyone is toxic, it would have to be particular individuals. The issue IMO is personalities and temperaments, not beliefs.

Dave

[David Koot]

And, sadly, I must report that it is 'fun' to argue...Granted, it is serious fun, but nevertheless, it is fun...And the more I think of it, the more I agree [was it you David?]...Heaven will be filled with arguers...arguing divergent views and having fun doing so...Granted, there should be rules for arguing so as to avoid name calling and such...That is why politics and Religion are not for the faint of heart.

I would say, it is 'fun' to engage in a challenging discussion. And, it can be done in a civil way. That is part of the fun. I think it was Von Clausewitz who suggested some positive benefits of conflict. How that conflict is waged can make quite a difference indeed. The chivalrous conduct of warfare is a long-standing tradition, dating back, certainly, to the Teutonic knights during the Middle Ages. That tradition was still seen in the old line officer class of the Wermacht during the last war. (NOT in the S.S.!!!) It was also quite noticeable in the War Between the States, here in the U.S., more so in the Confederacy. For example, when Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard sent a note to major Anderson demanding the surrender of Ft. Sumter, he signed it thusly, "I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant," (etc.) as Winston put it, if you're going to knock your opponent down, at least you can be courteous to him. Thus, in the present situation, the chivalrous conduct of a conflict in ideas, the courtly art of 'war,' does add a special pleasantness to the process. I suspect it is a class-oriented phenomenon. Just as in the Civil War, the 'mudsills' were not conversant with such matters. Like the boors who demolished the monastery in Monte Cassini during the last war, but not like the German general who defied Hitler and refused to burn Paris. So, I would hope that those who choose to engage in this particular species of conflict, online, would do so in a civilized and chivalrous way. That may well involve a fight to the death--but, the coup de grace will be administered with courtly grace. Ha! Even the gladiators were wont to say, Morituri te salutant.

Dave

[WayneV]

let me ask this...

Is there ANYONE here, who is willing to say, they are responsible for chasing people away???

Or is it all........ THEM???

Stan,

In my observations of CA since its inception, I have never seen anyone "chased away" by another poster. I have seen members that "CHOSE" to leave. But, as far as I know, only Admin/Mods have the ability to "chase" people away. There does seem to be a lot of whining. "Stop touching me!" "Mommy, s/he touched me!" type of stuff. Like Jasd states in another post on this thread, these whiners should change the channel.

I love to come and read the forums, even the "heated" discussions. While not a frequent poster, I do comment occasionally. However, I have learned a great deal by lurking here. Many times it has driven me to search the scriptures again to discover if what I believe would indeed stand up under scrutiny. My personal theology has grown due to exchanges on this forum. Some of the discussions that caused such examination and change were driven by the more "passionate" posters (i.e. "heated expositions with some personal attacks"). But, none of those posters have left. They are still here.

Please don't quell the passion, for the subject is one of life or death.

Thanks for opening CA and making it available to us.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Please don't quell the passion, for the subject is one of life or death.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Maybe not specifically by offending a particular individual (or if so I'm not aware of it), but certainly by contributing to and continuing with an atmosphere of debate, I suspect I may have 'turned off' some who have chosen to be elsewhere.

Not trying to analyze here but rather agree with this point. In my observation, boards without conflict do not tend to draw much activity. While conflict causes some to go elsewhere, it causes others to stay.

When I first became a member here, I approached disagreement with others in the way I was taught to debate in high school. Of course in debate competitions, one is going to do things to frustrate their opponents that is not going to be appreciated on a Christian board like it is in academia. So changing my style of disagreeing with others has been a process which is still under work. If one were to go through the archives and read some of my posts from even a few years ago they would notice a change in style. One thing I learned in debate which has proved useful, is not to let my opponents get under my skin and frustrate me. For the most part, that rarely happens to me but many here have never learned how they can control, to a large extent, what upsets them and what does not.

Like Bravus, I will confess to contributing to an environment that has cause some to leave. Those that are offended often swamp the administrators with complaints. Those that enjoy following lively debate, or perhaps even participate in it, are not so quick to swamp administrators with compliments. So I imagine that the administrators hear more from those with complaints than those with compliments.

I may have been partially responsible for Tealeaves leaving this forum. I had nothing against her personally. I was even responsible for throwing her an online baby shower and my wife and I sent her some nice baby gifts. She was a non-Adventist member that went to an Adventist college and married an Adventist man. Sometimes when I disagreed with her on religious beliefs she would feel I was attacking her personally and sent me some pretty hot PMs to let me know that. I tried to handle it tenderly and let her know I disagreed with her on doctrine but was not trying to judge her relationship with Christ. I think she was a valuable member here and miss her but not sure I want to say we shouldn't defend our faith in order not to hurt the feelings of others that don't believe as we do.

[olger]

Quote:

There does seem to be a lot of whining. "Stop touching me!" "Mommy, s/he touched me!" type of stuff. Like Jasd states in another post on this thread, these whiners should change the channel.

Correct. This kind of stuff is not useful or edifying.

[John317]

Like Bravus, I will confess to contributing to an environment that has cause some to leave.

One person a couple of days ago said that I had caused many people to leave CA, but I don't know who they could possibly be, nor have a seen anyone tell who they are, even though I asked. If anyone reads my posts, they won't see any that I have written where I talked disrespectfully to anyone, although I have always been direct in my criticism of what I consider false or wrong doctrine. But I never make it a personal matter. I do my best to keep the discussion on the issues and on the evidence and reasoning. That's very important to me. I think everyone has a right to say what they believe here as long as it is not a personal attack on individuals.

Quote:

... not sure I want to say we shouldn't defend our faith in order not to hurt the feelings of others that don't believe as we do.

Agreed. We should do it as Christ did, with love in His voice, but we should not hestitate to tell what we believe is the truth for fear of hurting someone's feelings. People's feelings are not as important as the truth.

[melvin mccarty]

"It was not to JUDGE the world that God sent his Son into the world, but that through Him the world might be saved" John 3:17.

Perhaps one should not be hasty to judge others! Not really our job is it?

mel

[Guest charis]

and building on what Melvin just wrote, perhaps it is better to be a *witness* to others of Christ's love, rather than the judge of the assembly. Let Satan be the accuser. I think he's back from his vacation.

[Woody]

Quote:

One person a couple of days ago said that I had caused many people to leave CA, but I don't know who they could possibly be, nor have a seen anyone tell who they are, even though I asked. If anyone reads my posts, they won't see any that I have written where I talked disrespectfully to anyone, although I have always been direct in my criticism of what I consider false or wrong doctrine. But I never make it a personal matter. I do my best to keep the discussion on the issues and on the evidence and reasoning. That's very important to me. I think everyone has a right to say what they believe here as long as it is not a personal attack on individuals.

I am just not sure what to say about this. It is amazing. I guess that ignorance must be bliss for moderators who are in control.

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Two toxic faiths dominate CA.

Neither faith is toxic in and of itself.

Since I am the one who posted the original statement, and since I did not specify what they were, and further, since you did not ask, your statement is based on . . . . . .

pure assumption.

And your statement is in fact wrong. The faiths that dominate are indeed inherently toxic.

Making false assumptions is not toxic. It might be arrogant or ignorant or foolish or presumptive, but it is not toxic.