Forum manners in an ideal world
Comments
-
Butters said:
I'm always willing to discuss further. And please know that you have an open invitation to drop by for a
with Butters. Don't care for Martini's but, there are other options perhaps. [:)]
Butters said:C.S. Lewis...What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees?
In the Spanish language mountains are feminine (la montaña) and trees are masculine (el árbol). BTW, I admire C.S. Lewis' exploration of these and other concepts in his books, but just because it's him doesn't mean it's right, or in this case even particularly helpful. Even if I agree with Lewis that masculine and feminine are more than merely biological (I do, actually), we are no closer to understanding what that might mean, or if those terms can be properly applied to non-personal entities, like arguments (except by way of metaphor). His suggestions are interesting, but not compelling (IMHO).
Butters said:I think it's highly probable that you know very well what "masculine" and "feminine" mean.
I know what these words mean in the biological sense, and to a degree in the linguistic sense, but in the sense to which you seem to refer, I don't. That's why I asked.
I was a philosophy major at Calvin College when prof's like Alvin Pantinga, and Nick Wolterstorf were there. In an argument (or reasoned discourse), it's important that terms be both understood and used in the same way. These men (and others in the Philosophy department at the time: H. Evan Runner & Rich Mouw, e.g.) were very helpful in shaping my approach to reasoned discourse (which we seem to be having). I'm not a nominalist, but if a term refers to something, that something should be able to be described with more than one word.
So, while there are real (i.e. biological, psychological, and sociological) referents in speaking of masculine and feminine, to speak of arguments (which are non-personal entities) in those terms is to use them metaphorically, or to generalize from one's experience on what it means to be masculine or feminine. Or are you doing something else with these terms.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
What a great life lesson for us all to learn. I would add that even being factual without expressing care will also result in ineffectiveness. A person might win the argument but lose the relationship.
Very true, and I find myself guilty of this when I do not take the time and care to properly formulate a response. I normally try to put my responses aside and re-read them again later to ensure that I’m not overtly offensive or lacking in grace. I humbly admit that I did not exercise that practice and level of care this week in some of my responses.
However, I do also generally agree with Butters' thesis. Many in society (many Christians included) have become almost maniacally concerned with not offending others and that can serve to stifle spirited debate. In my opinion, these restrictions on discourse contribute to the promulgation of both a cultural and spiritual relativism/universalism that causes me great alarm for the future.
The Gospel message itself is offensive to many in society, but surely Christians should not suggest that it be watered down for fear of eliciting outrage from those who might disagree. I shudder to think that someone will be on the wrong side of eternity because I was more concerned with not aggrieving them than I was with the final dispensation of their soul. In the future I will endeavor to be cognizant of framing my responses more congenially. However, if someone makes a theological point that is simply untenable, my position is that the true loving response is one of correction and not avoidance.
0 -
Hopefully I don't step on your toes. Comments on two points.
Butters said:
I do not, however, believe that one should allow outright lies or illogical or unsupportable assertions to proliferateThe problem is that what we see as divine truth is seen by others as deadly heresy. [Thanks to Logos I have sometimes been able to compare the augments that I have been taught with those of others and [sometimes] figured out where the first step of disagreement was. Other times I cannot see any error in either augment]
- <<changed the subject as what is under discussion is not important here>>Butters said:
For example, for no other reason than that a person disagreed with my position on, say, [Something or other], and was unable to engage with it much less refute it (a position I hold and can defend theologically, scripturally, legally and philosophically), I have thereby been accused of engaging in “hate speech.”There are subjects [the Something or other] where if you are in place AA you get burned at the stake just for defending that stand but if you were in place ZZ you would be praised as a worthy leader.
What we might need to do in some of those cases [imho] is admit that Satan won on the street [and let the believers in the Something or other have their way in this world] but fight to keep their ideas out of OUR church. And not be accused of "hate speech" if all we are doing is keeping it out of OUR church. [maybe providing we deliberately state that we accept them on the street but not in OUR church - But too often both sides demand that it is all or nothing [not in OUR church and not on THEIR street] or [on the street and force it into the church] depending which side one is on] Maybe we need to convince THEM that as long as we are not stopping THEM we are not a threat - we just don't want it in OUR church.
0 -
Is this when we pull out the word "radical" and start branding everyone? I see the results in certain nations that will execute you and burn your churches..... (Crusades, Inquisition,witch trials, Conquistadors, Ayatollah..)David Ames said:But too often both sides demand that it is all or nothing [not in OUR church and not on THEIR street] or [on the street and force it into the church] depending which side one is on]
If only "they" would do likewise.David Ames said:Maybe we need to convince THEM that as long as we are not stopping THEM we are not a threat - we just don't want it in OUR church.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I'm in the middle of writing and all that, but I just want to say quickly to David Ames: I am very leery of the idea of the Church (broadly considered) forsaking the world and turning inward to focus on herself. Yes we need to be a sanctuary; and we need to some extent shut out the world during Mass, et cetera. But sooner or later the world is coming for us; it's already happening. So we ignore developments "on the street" at our peril. Moreover, it seems to me to be essentially Christian and good and true to be fully engaged with the world.
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Erik Vines said:
Many in society (many Christians included) have become almost maniacally concerned with not offending others and that can serve to stifle spirited debate. In my opinion, these restrictions on discourse contribute to the promulgation of both a cultural and spiritual relativism/universalism that causes me great alarm for the future.
This is not my experience. When I hear concerns regarding offending others, it is usually in the context of name-calling, over-generalization, falsehoods and ignorance - contexts in which others are rightly offended. A second context where I hear the concern is from what are popularly called "fringe groups" in which the loyalty is to a charismatic leader not a serious search for truth. Rather than being alarmed by relativism (which I do not espouse), I am more alarmed by the willingness to argue from quarter-truths, (very) shallow knowledge and inattentive listening.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
George Somsel said:
MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd.
and here I thought it was practicing for heaven.[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The Chairman of the Bored presiding over the winged babies with metal halos and harps over fluffy clouds might object to snarky comments like this. [;)]MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd.
and here I thought it was practicing for heaven.
0 -
Sleiman said:
The Chairman of the Bored presiding over the winged babies with metal halos and harps over fluffy clouds might object to snarky comments like this.MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd.
and here I thought it was practicing for heaven.
Snarky? I thought it was funny.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
It was.George Somsel said:Snarky? I thought it was funny.
<start spoiler alert>I thought that by referring to the boring images of heaven as depicted in some modern art (read: the chairman of the 'bored'), I'm ironically confirming that getting bored is practice for heaven! Therefore, saying that MJ's comment (or yours) is snarky in an ironic context means that I did not think so actually.</end spoiler alert>
{edit: what's more boring than that image of heaven is having to explain a failed attempt at a joke}
0 -
Butters said:
1) But sooner or later the world is coming for us; it's already happening.
2) So we ignore developments "on the street" at our peril.
3) Moreover, it seems to me to be essentially Christian and good and true to be fully engaged with the world.
1) True 2) True and 3) True. [re 2 and 3 - do we fight all the fights or do we pick and chose which fights and maybe also when and where we fight?]
[Was going to say more but can not figure out how to say it with 100,000 people reading it]
0 -
Ok, Sleiman. I thought I had the worst possible reverse humor. But I was wrong.[W]
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I always smile when Christians from the West sigh, that the world is getting out of hand, and only poor behavior can realistically get it back on track (always in love of course).
And they do this using a New Testament for which scholars have trouble dating the writings, due to the NT interest in 'the world' being so limited.
This, with several reassurances that a universe-creator could conceivably deal with it, with the needed finesse.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
TCBlack said:
The more I learn, the more I realize my knowledge is shallow.MJ. Smith said:, (very) shallow knowledge and inattentive listening.
Peace, Thomas! *smile* Me, too!
BTW, didn't someone somewhere write: "
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Denise said:
Ok, Sleiman. I thought I had the worst possible reverse humor. But I was wrong.
Ah, he got the rose. [:D] [Don't ask me the significance of that since I only heard it mentioned on the radio]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I had held off reading this thread as I though initially it would just have been a whinge session, but enjoyed reading through it all yesterday and have some thoughts.
Forums, and specifically the Logos forums with Logos' (hoping everyone will remember they are Christians) clear instructions (paraphrased) to users "be nice to each other and only talk about Logos products" can be characterised like parents giving 'instructions' to kids to behave themselves in the back seat of cars [:)].
I don't know about you, but I was one of four — in the days before seat belts — and a trip in the car was more like world war three than a politely restrained United Nations discussion. Part of the strategy was knowing how far ones' parents could be pushed before things went thermonuclear. As DEFCON 1 was being approached we would all turn down the volume and stop whining to them and continue our battles staying under the radar, everyone being aware of the unpleasantness of mutual assured destruction (MAD).
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Fights-in-the-Car-171098526
From the parents' perspective the policy basically was — as long as no-one was being strangled, and blood was not being splattered all over the back seat, and the noise was kept to a dull roar, then they would feign benign disinterest.
Sound familiar? And no, I'm not talking about your childhood car trips with siblings.
If Logos held strictly to it's policy of keeping discussions focused only on Logos Bible Software then the forums really would be a tumbleweed alley. As it is, when the (cough) kids play up and things are heating up to DEFCON 1, they can simply quote their (selectively enforced) rule and say "it's in the Forum Guidelines!" as they act parental and cool things down. Fortunately the Logos team exhibit a fair degree of parental long suffering!
So... given that there is a general policy of avoiding MAD between 'combatants' (forum users) , one would hope that when there are differing points of view offered that people would:
- in the case of beliefs and articles of faith listen and try and see what it is which may attract the other person to that belief (as crazy as that belief may seem!)
- in the case of presenting facts and/or logical arguments (arguments, not fights) then if one is going to try to refute them then that is done by directing ones' guns at the argument, not the person.
This would mean that devices such as the so-called 'fallacy hound', which usually does not make the effort to address and refute points being raised, but simply attempts to belittle the deliverer, should be banned by mutual assent.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Patrick S. said:
This would mean that devices such as the so-called 'fallacy hound', which usually does not make the effort to address and refute points being raised, but simply attempts to belittle the deliverer, should be banned by mutual assent.
Fallacy hound feels grossly misunderstood as he has no intent to belittle anyone ... in fact, fallacy hound is careful not to indicate whose fallacy he is on the trail of as there have been multiple, generally ad hominem variations, before he sneaks out from behind the bushes, Fallacy hound agrees whole heartedly with your emphasis on listening, persuasion and logical arguments ... but even when fallacy hound gets to ride in the pickup, he doesn't like verbal abuse ... his parents (and pack) didn't allow it to reach the point of hurtful even in the back seat on long trips.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Fallacy hound feels grossly misunderstood as he has no intent to belittle anyone ...
[:)] Prov 27:17
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Regarding use of certain canine devices, I would advise a healthy dose of restraint and self-examination, as Patrick S. points out.
One need only note a recent flag of "atrocious logic" and how fast it went downhill from there.
0 -
Very interesting that real adults are concerned about a picture of a dog. Kids in a car. Logos portrayed as parents. Bob? Dan? Can Logos afford to keep a surreal thread on its servers??
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 
