Times, they are a changin' More Guidelines Need Here

[Tom Wetmore]

I'll hazard a guess -

Add a line more

Editing to add one more line

[there buster]

Yeah. There was this guy who called his girlfriend "postscript" because her name was Adeline Moore.

[Planey]

LOL

Gotcha

Graeme

[John317]

"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

I agree that we should not be hasty to judge others. But the Bible says clearly that as Christians we have a responsibility to "judge them that are within" the church. 1 Cor. 5: 12. (Cf. Gal. 2: 11,12; Rev. 2: 6, 9, 14, 15, 20.)

"Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? Clear out the old yeast, so that you may bcome a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bred of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. 'Purge the evil person from your midst.'" 1 Cor. 5: 6-13.

We cannot judge anyone's heart, of course, but the Bible clearly commands us to judge behavior, and we have a responsibility to tell people what the Bible says about certain kinds of behaviors if we see it in the church. If we don't and if we are silent when we should say something, God holds us responsible the same as if we were guilty ourselves of participating in those sins. This is not a popular view in our day, granted, but it is what both the Bible and Ellen White say.

For instance, if I am living in direct violation of God's law, and no one in the church who knows about this says anything about it for fear of hurting my feelings, or because they don't want to be seen as "judging," the church as a whole suffers and God holds the person responsible for his silence.

Let the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you," dictate how we apply this.

Aaron, Eli, and Samuel lost their sons because they did not have a backbone to deal strongly with obvious sin in their own families. They were afraid of hurting people's feelings. That was a terrible choice for them to make. They were more afraid of what people thought than they were concerned with what God thinks. The Bible says it is witnessing to others of Christ's love when we tell them the truth, not when we give people the impression that they are OK when they aren't.

We must say these things with love, the same as Jesus did, of course, but it is not the loving thing to keep silence when the situation requires us to speak up.

Please see Ezekiel 3: 17-21; 1 Cor. 5; 6: 1-5; 2 Cor. 2: 1-11.

[David Koot]

Why are people so *hell bent* on pointing out misbehaviour, so little on what Christ is doing and can do in the lives of others?

Without question, the individual whose post you are responding to consistently magnifies what Christ is doing and has done--and is, in fact, a living testimony to the life-changing power of Jesus Christ. And, consistent with the Word of God, he, as well as others, also mentions 'misbehaviour' (sic) God mentions both, the Bible mentions both, and God's ministers and workers are charged by God to address both.

[Tom Wetmore]

CoAspen,

I think to a large extent on the broader scale of CA generally we are witnessing the following point made in Virginia Shea's Netiquette:

Quote:

In the worst-case scenario, a protracted flame war can destroy a discussion group. Inevitably, the least common denominator principle takes hold, and the group sinks to the level of the loudest and lowest flamers.

And of more immediate topical importance, we have also frequently seen this sort of ill-mannered netiquette policing:

Quote:

...Having good manners yourself doesn't give you license to correct everyone else.

If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by private email rather than in public... notes pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette.

For the whole thing - Netiquette

Tom

[David Koot]

CoAspen,

I think to a large extent on the broader scale of CA generally we are witnessing the following point made in Virginia Shea's Netiquette:

Quote:

In the worst-case scenario, a protracted flame war can destroy a discussion group. Inevitably, the least common denominator principle takes hold, and the group sinks to the level of the loudest and lowest flamers.

[Tom Wetmore]

A point of clarification. When one has referred to a "flame war" it should not be understood as only an ever escalating and endless war of nasty, rude, insulting, hateful and hurtful words. That is only one type of flame war. If that is the only sort of flaming that you are worrying about, CA has hardly the glow of a candle in the wind. What I am referring to are the "clean" flame wars that are destroying this place. Here is a set of "clean" flame war "rules", all of which are frequently and sometimes zealously followed here:

Rules for Flame Wars

These rules are issued in the spirit of clearing up some preconceptions about the waging of flame wars. Flame wars do not require profanity [or other rudeness, sarcasm or mean-spiritedness - Tom], as commonly misbelieved. The following list demonstrates ways to undertake "clean" flame wars:

1. Accuse the other party of your worst faults.

2. Insist that you are an avatar of the Truth and that the other person is Falsehood incarnate, or at least "misled."

3. Dwell on errors. Correct them in others at every opportunity.

4. Never apologize unequivocably. If forced to apologize, justify yourself in a way that makes it sound like the other party was responsible for your actions.

5. Write in such a way that the other party looks stupid if they don't respond.

6. Try to be many things at once, so that you can deny everything that is said about you.

7. Say the same thing over and over again.

8. Always strive to get the last word.

9. Never let a debate rest. Never allow the other party to withdraw without making it clear that they have lost.

10. Insist that you are misunderstood.

11. If you can't find something to flame the person about, make something up. Convince yourself that you see the "real" motives.

12. Remember: Winning is everything.

******

Rule for Those Who Do Not Want to Get into Flame Wars:

Ignore them.

-- by Joel GAzis-SAx, in Jaida N'Ha Sandra's The Joy of Conversation: The Complete Guide to Salons, p. 224.

Tom

[At Tom Wetmore's request, I have removed a part of his post--GM.]

[jasd]

A small group

have an agenda

small group

seems to want this forum

reflect their views

Members of the group

typically use

tactics

members of the group

ridicule

Members of the group

operate in relay team

using this forum

venues

vent

their anger

ridicule

they do not agree

their bad experiences

tactics of ridicule

deal with

the problem

underlying negativity

desire to control

direction of a forum

more workable

such individuals

their own forum

personal negativism

a few individuals

place that stamp

upon the entire forum

to strike back

toward which they may feel anger and resentment.

uhhh, Say what?! –Pogo

[Dr. Shane]

We get a lot of the pot calling the kettle black. That is, people are rude and inconsiderate of others and than complain when others are rude and inconsiderate to them. [sigh]

I try to stay focused on the topic and not other members. However sometimes other members associate their opinions so closely to themselves that if I point out flaws in the stated opinion, they feel as if it is a personal attack on them.

Say a member says something like "I don't believe the Sabbath is a salvation issue" and I respond by saying "It is as much of a salvation issue as adultery or murder." In some cases, the other member would feel as if I am attacking them. Perhaps they don't keep the Sabbath and feel as if I just called them an adulterer and murderer. In the free exchange of ideas, we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt sometimes.

However there are other situations where people are quite rude and even call the other member out by their name. I see insults made that are clearly personal. That kind of thing is uncalled for but no one wants to say anything lest the wrath be turned on them.

[Bravus]

Dave, I think you did a nice job of pointing out one situation. But believe me, expressing a 'liberal' view will get you ridiculed as fast or faster.

[David Koot]

But believe me, expressing a 'liberal' view will get you ridiculed as fast or faster.

That is truly regrettable. whether one is liberal, conservative or whatever, on a Christian forum one should not be ridiculed for his or her beliefs.

Now, after reflecting upon this whole agglomeration, I have a proposal. This proposal is based on the fundamental principle, "Live and let live."

Statement of problem:

1) Conflict--unceasing, incessant

2) Ridicule

Proposed solution:

I propose that a new forum should be added to the forums already functioning on C/A. I'm going to use Bravus' term. Call it, "The Steel Cage." Even include a graphic of a steel cage. This should be a 'Members Only' forum. The Steel Cage forum would be for those who want a fight. It would also be for those who may wish to express negative emotions about the subject or the presenter. Threads could be begun in the Steel Cage. And, they would be transferred by admin from elsewhere to the Steel Cage under the following circumstances:

1) A thread continues for twenty or thirty pages, with no resolution, just bashing back and forth.

w) A thread degenerates into ridicule and the like.

Once in the Steel Cage, participants could duke it out until one of them cries, "Hold, enough!" (apologies to Shakespeare lol) I suggest it would be in the interest of C/A for mods/admin to transfer such threads into the Steel Cage expeditiously. This would keep the rest of the forums as a safe place, for those who do not want a fight.

I also submit that because of the emotional content and other issues, something like the above is the only type of thing that will be effective. It ain't gonna self-correct.

Dave

[David Koot]

Quite frankly my dear...I haven't a clue as to why all the response to an observation. The post I refered to had a statement about the 'need' to point out others faults, not an uncommon one throughout all threads from time to time. A thread seeking to talk about the positives of Christs life, supporting the spiritual life of others, etc., will die a quick death. But when posting about whats wrong with others beliefs, lifestyles or what ever, they go on forever and ever. I was picking out a statement that I see quoted all to often.

A valid type of observation. Whether or not I personally agree, is immaterial to this observer. More importantly, it would seem within the realm of fair comment. It was not your observation that I had as much concern about, as it was one of the responses to your observation.

Dave

[John317]

Quite frankly my dear...I haven't a clue as to why all the response to an observation. The post I refered to had a statement about the 'need' to point out others faults, not an uncommon one throughout all threads from time to time. A thread seeking to talk about the positives of Christs life, supporting the spiritual life of others, etc., will die a quick death. But when posting about whats wrong with others beliefs, lifestyles or what ever, they go on forever and ever. I was picking out a statement that I see quoted all to often.

I seem to remember Christ toing very little 'fault finding', maybe he was too busy.....doing good or whatever.

Both are needed at different times, depending on the circumstances.

The Bible contains the command, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Is. 58: 1). It also contains the words, "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the Lord, and they redeemer, the Holy One of Israel" Is. 41: 14).

I was not saying that pointing out sin is something anyone should always be doing. I was simply observing that there are times when that is necessary and that if done the way God would have us do it, it is actually an act of love both for the individual and for the church as a whole. But I agree with you that our emphasis should always be positives of Christ's life and the great and wonderful things God does in our lives.

[David Koot]

By the way, an alternative name for a new forum could be, "The Free Zone." Perhaps not such an overtone of battle lust, but the same principle: a free-for-all, gloves off.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Is it pointing out the faults in others' beliefs or defending our own?

[David Koot]

Example, if a none or former SDA questions a paticular belief, is is most often seen as an attack.

[Dr. Shane]

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." 1Peter 3:15

[John317]

Defending implies that one is being attacked. Why would that be an assuption if it is simply a matter of disagreement or perspective? Example, if a none or former SDA questions a paticular belief, is is most often seen as an attack. That seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction, possibley because the one feeling attack simply can't give good reason for their belief.

As I have said before, truth can stand on its own, more so by actions than by words.

The Holy Spirit inspired Jude to write, "I feel compelled to make my letter to you an earnest appeal to put up a real fight for the faith which has been once and for all committed to those who belong to Christ." (Phillips Trans.) "For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (New American Bible).

"The enemy's agents are working unceasingly to prevail against the truth. Where are the faithful guardians of the Lord's flocks? Where are His watchmen? Are they standing on the high tower, giving the danger signal, or are they allowing the peril to pass unheeded?...

"My message to you is this: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth." Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, Pp. 13-15.

We shouldn't be attacking people in personal ways, and it is not always necessary to answer every attack made against the truth. Sometimes silence is golden. Most often, as you say, our life is more powerful than words. But on the other hand, we shouldn't ever feel that it is wrong for us to "carry on a vigorous defense of the faith." (NT in the Language of the People.)

Many times if Christians don't answer the attacks against the faith, observers will take that to mean the Christians don't have an answer. Unfortunately, people watching very seldom conclude that Christians don't reply because of their love and because of the mounds of supporting evidence.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Hmm... Haven't been to this thread in awhile, and haven't caught up on the latest, but I want to make a point that I think will help the forum a lot. I think that if we each choose to step back before posting and ask ourselves:

1. Is this how I want my Brother or Sister to be treated?

2. Is this how I want to be treated?

3. Am I responding in anger or in "all-knowing" tones? (Whether I'm angry or not isn't the point.)

4. Is this how I want to represent my personality to this person (and others) here at CA or anywhere else in life?

5. Am I requiring my idea of perfection of the other person, while not requiring goodness on some level of myself?

6. At the same time, am I being too hard on myself?

then I think that, those of us who choose to follow the Golden Rule (when we choose to do that), can make a big difference in our own lives and the lives of others who come here. It's about each one of us just asking ourselves to take personal responsibility for our own actions and how we're coming off to others, while not living in fear of each other at the same time. Regardless of what rules we have here at CA. I mean, there are other message boards that many of us frequent. Some have tighter or looser policies than others. Do we police ourselves on our own when we are at those boards, without being told how to treat each other "or else"? If so, then we should here. If not, then each to their own, I guess.

So anyway, I just wanted to throw that suggestion into the mix: just taking personal responsibility for those of us who want to. Those of us who don't, well, then we can just represent ourselves badly to everyone and wind up looking bad to others, I guess. And what others do with that is really beyond our control. Some will leave, others will forgive... It's a roulette game in the end anyway. Personally, I just want to have fun when it's fun, and be serious when it's serious, but I do know that I'm not here to actually hurt anyone. I'm guessing it's the same for most of the rest of us.

[John317]

I think that's all good, COG4E!

Have a wonderful, blessed Sabbath.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

If there are not good Scriptural reasons for a belief, then the belief should be discarded. But so far, working solely from the Bible and lexical aids, I have found solid Scriptural support for the Adventist doctrinal teachings I have checked into. But then again, I don't feel threatened by a good discussion about them.

I'm glad you don't feel threatened when discussing what you believe That's always a good thing.

There's a difference between discarding a belief that isn't shared with someone, and discarding another person for having it, and I think it's really important to remember that here as well as elsewhere in life.

All too often, I've both witnessed and been involved in exchanges with other Adventists who were perfectly willing to discard me (end the conversation, look dirty at me, turn their noses up to me, walk away in a huff, throw "clean" insults at me, gossip about me, look for friends to side with them against me...) simply because I said something that was not in alignment with what they said they believed (which often times was a misrepresentation of their true, inward-belief as only expressed more fully later on anyway). And I've been guilty of treating others, Adventist or not, the same way.

I believe this to be a generational bad-social-skills-teaching that is simply passed down from one church-generation (family or friends we associate with from church) to the next, based on the ideology that if we believe so much in God and if He's with us, then certainly, for one, we're all going to believe the exact same things at the exact same time as each other, and for another, that we'll all get everything "right" every time (in our own and each others' eyes). It all boils down to perfectionism vs. forgiveness and fear vs. love. Dwight Nelson, a few years ago, preached some excellent sermons at the Gladstone Camp-meeting (OR), on the subject.

In the end, I honestly believe it has to do with learning self-control and "others-consciousness" (empathy) in every situation, coupled with, when we do fail to live up to our own lofty standards, forgiving ourselves and learning from it and being willing to try to do better next time, and keep trying, knowing that it's all a learning experience anyway.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

I think that's all good, COG4E!

Have a wonderful, blessed Sabbath.

Awwe Thank you! You too!

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

The post I refered to had a statement about the 'need' to point out others faults, not an uncommon one throughout all threads from time to time.

You know, I'm thinking about this. I don't mean by my recent comments to say that I think that no one should ever be confronted personally (rather than topically/belief-wise) under any circumstance. For instance, if it seems that someone is under the belief that, "because we are under Grace," that it's now ok to go out and kill someone they don't like... Well, amongst other actions that might (or might not) be possible to take (to ensure the safety of the proposed victim), I do think it's completely appropriate to confront that person with a kind, nonthreatening tone, by reminding them what the purpose of the Holy Spirit is and that it's worth it to Listen to Him. Chastising them and throwing the Book at them isn't going to do anything but cause more "huff" on their part. But Lovingly Encouraging them (and Asking God for Help in that situation, of course), is probably the best way to handle that kind of situation.

But you know something? I do think it's rather sad when someone comes here and mistakenly says something that a more Seasoned Christian doesn't agree with, and then gets treated badly like that proverbial "Grace only" murderer in the making would get treated by someone who's not so Forgiving themselves...

[jasd]

...not wishing to appear ‘confrontational’ but...

>>...personal issues/beliefs or interpetations that ordinary people struggle with that have nothing to do with salvation issues.<<

I would question why -- that which is Writ, might be relegated to the simple descriptive “personal issues/beliefs or interpretations”. Were one to condense Writ – one might do so by advancing only the doctrine “Christ and Him crucified”... or be satisfied with a milky diet of the Word.

>>I noticed that quotes used in support of 'pointing' out errors are usualy not in context or partial. That usualy happens because it supports the view of the person posting them.<<

I give credence to the fact that one “ ‘pointing’ ” out of “context” (supposedly) is probably doing so because no one here is posting dissertatively. That is probably because no sheepskins are being handed out on this forum.

>>Much more time is spent in defense of 'pointing' instead of folofwing the lead of Christ in his ministry here on earth.<<

Miracles?

>>Not sure why people are so concerned about their 'right' to 'point'!!

It is not a right? and are 'they' really "so concerned"? or do they simply follow sequential procedures inherent in dialogue? that is, posit/point, response/point.

>>The words of humankind have very little persuasion upon my beliefs or views. But their actions speak volumes about their own belief or views.<<

Words – are the lexemes and morphemes, the ‘metaphors’ of cultural grammar that sustain the intellect. Without said intellect..., nothing of significance follows.

>>With out the death (action) of Christ on the cross, His words would have lost as dust in the wind.<<

It may be that, also, proclamation was/is parcel that singular act without which – neither you nor I would benefit (according to the dogmas and doctrines of most religious .orgs).

Without proclamation/words..., we may as well believe in black helicopters and rangy chupacabras, no?