Is everyone welcome here?

In the past couple of weeks, the tone of these forums seems to have changed. I no longer feel welcome.

Nearly every thread that I have subscribed to recently or made a small contribution to has degenerated into opinionated, closed minded drivel. This appears to have been mainly from an antischolarly fundamentalist or conservative point of view. Any other viewpoint is dismissed out of hand, usually without any reasoned argument.

I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software. I expect a little discussion of Biblical issues around that, but not that I should have to conform to someone else's views or that my own views will be dismissed out of hand.

Logos is used by a hugely diverse group of people: Christians of all types, other groups related to Christianity, Jews, agnostics, others. A user's theological viewpoint should not affect their acceptance on these forums. With my own progressive, non-conservative viewpoints, I am starting to feel how perhaps the Catholic users have felt here in the past.

My very reason for using the software, is to take a scholarly approach to the Bible and other literature, allowing me to make my own judgements on spiritual matters. I need to be free to explore on my own terms.

Is everyone welcome here?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

Is everyone welcome here?

Everyone is welcome apart from those who don't treat others with courtesy and respect. I'm pretty sure that means you are very welcome here [:)].

Lee

I've felt the same way myself a few times.

I come back to these forums because it is still a good source of information and advice. Time and again, I find that there are good interactions. But there are bad days, and bad threads.

However, I wouldn't characterize any antagonism as emanating from any theological angle. I think it's the personalities and egos that set things off rather than particular philosophical or religious persuasions. Sometimes, it's simply because of the cultural divide.

I've been poked fun at for being "conservative" too.

Speaking for myself, yes you are very welcome.

NB.Mick

Is everyone welcome here?

Everyone is welcome apart from those who don't treat others with courtesy and respect. I'm pretty sure that means you are very welcome here .

+1 [Y]

David Thomas

However, I wouldn't characterize any antagonism as emanating from any theological angle. I think it's the personalities and egos that set things off rather than any philosophical or religious persuasion. I've been poked fun at for being "conservative" too.

Speaking for myself, yes you are very welcome.

[Y]

Jonathan Pitts

Is everyone welcome here?

Everyone is welcome apart from those who don't treat others with courtesy and respect. I'm pretty sure that means you are very welcome here .

Thank you Mark. I was sorry to miss meeting you in person when I came to Bridgend for Steve Runge's course.

Bruce Dunning

Jonathan I think you are right that there have been some discussions that have drifted in a negative direction but please don't give up on the forums. We just need to continually gently remind folks of the forum guidelines when things get off track. As I often say, there is hardly a day that goes by that I don't learn something new from people here.

Jonathan Pitts

However, I wouldn't characterize any antagonism as emanating from any theological angle.

The particular theological angle that I mention has just been in a few threads that I have subscribed to recently. However, time and again I have seen potentially useful threads degenerate into a pointless exchange between two or three posters, which makes the thread unwelcoming to everyone else.

My reason for posting here is simply to ask regular forum users to consider how threads will appear to new users and to users with different viewpoints. A sensible dialogue is what helps here, not just stating your own views and repeating them ad infinitum.

Lee

You make a good point there. [:)]

David Thomas

However, I wouldn't characterize any antagonism as emanating from any theological angle.

The particular theological angle that I mention has just been in a few threads that I have subscribed to recently. However, time and again I have seen potentially useful threads degenerate into a pointless exchange between two or three posters, which makes the thread unwelcoming to everyone else.

My reason for posting here is simply to ask regular forum users to consider how threads will appear to new users and to users with different viewpoints. A sensible dialogue is what helps here, not just stating your own views and repeating them ad infinitum.

[Y]

Paul-C

It's sometimes easy to identify the "problem" threads without even opening them.

If you spot a new thread on the forum homepage, and in a short space of time it tends to grow very rapidly, gaining more pages more quickly than most other posts - you can almost be sure there's some heated debate going on there. [:D]

Butters

Jonathan, you are indeed welcome here! It always amazes me that anyone would feel otherwise - even on the most rabidly secularist/atheist fora, I have felt that I was most welcome, even especially when my arguments were reviled.

Anyway, I am a relative newcomer and I don't believe I've had the pleasure of interacting with you very much; and I cannot say that I know much about you.

However, I must say something about your post, something that is liable to not go over well; and yet, I'm going to say it anyway because methinks it's important and relevant.

I think you imagine that below you are inhabiting a kind of "Switzerland of the Mind" - that you are putting forth a neutral and supremely reasonable point of view. And I am sure there are many people on this forum who agree with you.

But you see, there are some problems with that posture.

First....

Nearly every thread that I have subscribed to recently or made a small contribution to has degenerated into opinionated, closed minded drivel. This appears to have been mainly from an antischolarly fundamentalist or conservative point of view. Any other viewpoint is dismissed out of hand, usually without any reasoned argument.

...you seem to be equating "anti scholarly fundamentalism" (a thoroughly loaded term) and "conservative point of view" with "opinionated, close minded drivel" (more loaded terms.)

Consider it this way: what does it signify that "opinionated, close-minded drivel" should appear to only come from those points of view and not from others?

It might mean that you simply don't notice the "opinionated" and "close-minded drivel" that emanates from viewpoints more reconcilable to yours?

Or that you are more likely to see Conservative view points as "close minded"?

Or Fundamentalist viewpoints as "anti-scholarly"?

Or that you have concluded these things about Conservatives and/or Fundamentalists without actually having engaged in first making an attempt to understand those viewpoints?

It is also worth asking what is meant by those terrifically abused words:

"opinionated" is a word used pejoratively by people who seem to think that at that very moment they are not actually advancing their own opinion, but somehow speaking from some Mt. Olympian region of neutrality.
"close minded" is a phrase that is often used to describe pejoratively those people with whom we disagree; implying, of course, that the speaker is colossally "open-minded," while at the same time demonstrating that he is manifestly close-minded when it comes to these same allegedly close-minded people.

And so on....

Second....

[quote] I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software. I expect a little discussion of Biblical issues around that, but not that I should have to conform to someone else's views or that my own views will be dismissed out of hand......A user's theological viewpoint should not affect their acceptance on these forums. With my own progressive, non-conservative viewpoints, I am starting to feel how perhaps the Catholic users have felt here in the past.

You don't seem to be aware that you are actually expecting other people to conform to YOUR normative notions.

[quote]

THAT^^ is a very radical idea.

Now, you might thoroughly understand how radical it is; you may have come to the conclusion that this is the only or best way to explore the truth....however, please don't imagine that this is some sort of neutral point of view.

Many people, including myself, see this approach as potentially quite dangerous to you as a person.

An isolated person trying his or her best to "figure things out" on his own terms is not only liable but likely to end in error, and at worst to stay there.

All of the above was written in the spirit of love.

~Butters [:)]

Philip Larson

Thank you, Butters. "Love for neighbor" should always hold, even with those whose views are offensive. "Toleration" might mean holding my nose as I engage another.

But more important is love for God, which I take to have objective parameters. But that God says to love the unlovely.

David Ames

<A> I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software.

<B> Is everyone welcome here?

A) As best you can ignore all of the rest and just use the forum to learn / teach how to use Logos - not what it is used for.

Yes, everyone

Jack Caviness

I think you imagine that below you are inhabiting a kind of "Switzerland of the Mind" - that you are putting forth a neutral and supremely reasonable point of view. And I am sure there are many people on this forum who agree with you.

But you see, there are some problems with that posture.

Thank you, Butters, for that absolutely outstanding post.

Mark

Jonathan

Everyone is welcomed on the forums. You will find people of all persuasions who are tolerant and intolerant. You will also find people of all persuasions who are respectful and disrespectful. That is simply human nature. I choose not to get offended when someone argues forcefully and disrespectfully a viewpoint I do not agree with. I find much in the forums that is helpful. And I have learned in the forums how God has a way of showing the beam in our eyes when we suggest a group or person has a spec in his/her own eye.

A post like yours shows up from time to time on the forum in various shades. And it will show up again and again. This is because the forum is made up of people described in the Bible as sinners. And as sinners, we all will become frustrated at others in what is written or in the way it is written.

You are welcomed in these forums as much as anyone else.

James Chandler

Is everyone welcome here?

As far as I'm concerned you are. [;)]

Jonathan Pitts

...you seem to be equating "anti scholarly fundamentalism" (a thoroughly loaded term) and "conservative point of view" with "opinionated, close minded drivel" (more loaded terms.)

The antischolarly nature of the posts I have been reading could reasonably be considered opinionated and closed minded. They seem to immediately reject anyone who has studied an issue and drawn conclusions from that study. Some of the conclusions have been quite mainstream but have still been rejected, seemingly because of their scholarly origins.

I do not consider conservatism or fundamentalism as necessarily opinionated, closed minded or drivel. They simply seemed to be part of the background to the posts that I have been reading.

You don't seem to be aware that you are actually expecting other people to conform to YOUR normative notions.

I hope that the views of everyone here will be tolerated. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, although I occasionally encourage others to look in the same direction as me.

THAT^^ is a very radical idea.

Now, you might thoroughly understand how radical it is; you may have come to the conclusion that this is the only or best way to explore the truth....however, please don't imagine that this is some sort of neutral point of view.

Many people, including myself, see this approach as potentially quite dangerous to you as a person.

An isolated person trying his or her best to "figure things out" on his own terms is not only liable but likely to end in error, and at worst to stay there.

It seems to me that the very reason for studying the Bible and other Christian books is for me to interact with other writers and scholars and draw conclusions from that process. It defeats that purpose if I start the process by restricting the possible answers to those that I or others consider to be safe or orthodox. If the evidence points to my preconceptions being false then I need to revise those preconceptions.

I am on a lifelong (perhaps eternal) journey of discovery and education, I have not yet reached the destination. Please tolerate my eccentricities while we walk together.

All of the above was written in the spirit of love.

Thank you.

Jonathan Pitts

A post like yours shows up from time to time on the forum in various shades. And it will show up again and again. This is because the forum is made up of people described in the Bible as sinners. And as sinners, we all will become frustrated at others in what is written or in the way it is written.

Yes, I have read similar threads before and will again. There just seemed to have been an increase in intolerance in the last few threads that I have subscribed to, such that it was no longer a pleasure to read the posts. My only hope in posting was to remind people to consider how their posts can affect others and perhaps nudge us back towards the tolerance hoped for in the forum guidelines.

I hope my comments will not be taken as criticism of any particular group of Christians. (I acknowledge that my mentions of fundamentalism and conservatism could be interpreted that way.) I sought only to criticise those who turn useful forum threads into unwelcoming and intolerant exchanges.

Butters

Jonathan,

I would be glad to respond to your very thoughtful response; however, I am presently on my way out to a dinner. In the meantime, I would just like to ask you what you mean by the word "tolerance"? (and its iterations such as "intolerance" and "(in)tolerant") It's a word you seem very fond of using.

~Butters [:)]

Matthew C Jones

Is everyone welcome here?

Quite welcome, indeed. Especially you, David Paul, DAL, Denise, Lee, Mark Barnes, George Somsel, fgh, Milford Charles Murray, MJ, Lynden Williams, John, Josh, JoshinRI, Francis, Butters , Steve, Jerome Smith, Wild Eagle, David Ames, Jack Caviness, Todd Phillips, Divinesoteriology, DominicM and everyone else whose names I did not mention.

I enjoy hearing from both scholars and new students alike. I learn things from just about everyone who posts. I hope you will continue to post, Jonathan. I am certain you have much to share and I look forward to learning from you. I wish you well.

Jonathan Pitts

Jonathan,

I would be glad to respond to your very thoughtful response; however, I am presently on my way out to a dinner. In the meantime, I would just like to ask you what you mean by the word "tolerance"? (and its iterations such as "intolerance" and "(in)tolerant") It's a word you seem very fond of using.

~Butters

Tolerance: The disposition or ability to accept without protest the opinions or acts of others.

Perhaps it was not tolerant of me to start this thread.

There are times when tolerance is appropriate and times when it is not.

It is very appropriate in a forum of bible software users with diverse opinions, especially where theological discussion is discouraged but hints of our theology will inevitably be discovered in our comments on other matters.

God has been very tolerant of me.

David Taylor, Jr.

In the past couple of weeks, the tone of these forums seems to have changed. I no longer feel welcome.

Nearly every thread that I have subscribed to recently or made a small contribution to has degenerated into opinionated, closed minded drivel. This appears to have been mainly from an antischolarly fundamentalist or conservative point of view. Any other viewpoint is dismissed out of hand, usually without any reasoned argument.

I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software. I expect a little discussion of Biblical issues around that, but not that I should have to conform to someone else's views or that my own views will be dismissed out of hand.

Logos is used by a hugely diverse group of people: Christians of all types, other groups related to Christianity, Jews, agnostics, others. A user's theological viewpoint should not affect their acceptance on these forums. With my own progressive, non-conservative viewpoints, I am starting to feel how perhaps the Catholic users have felt here in the past.

My very reason for using the software, is to take a scholarly approach to the Bible and other literature, allowing me to make my own judgements on spiritual matters. I need to be free to explore on my own terms.

Is everyone welcome here?

It's my understanding these forums aren't supposed to contain Theological debate, though it does happen, but yes, everyone is welcome.

DMB

One of the major benefits of the Logos forum are fellow participants intimately familar with exactly what YHWH thinks, and indeed even how to correctly spell his name using Canaanite letters (Phoenesian) to approximate aramaic square characters encouraged by Persian satraps.

Butters

Tolerance: The disposition or ability to accept without protest the opinions or acts of others.

Okay, so as you seem to realize, on your own definition you yourself are being "intolerant" in this very thread.

Be that as it may, however, I would like to push you further on this definition; this may seem tedious but in the end I hope instructive.

What do you mean "accept without protest"? Do you mean to assent to what is being said inwardly? Or just outwardly? Or both? Or something else?

Milford Charles Murray

In the past couple of weeks, the tone of these forums seems to have changed. I no longer feel welcome.

Nearly every thread that I have subscribed to recently or made a small contribution to has degenerated into opinionated, closed minded drivel. This appears to have been mainly from an antischolarly fundamentalist or conservative point of view. Any other viewpoint is dismissed out of hand, usually without any reasoned argument.

I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software. I expect a little discussion of Biblical issues around that, but not that I should have to conform to someone else's views or that my own views will be dismissed out of hand.

Logos is used by a hugely diverse group of people: Christians of all types, other groups related to Christianity, Jews, agnostics, others. A user's theological viewpoint should not affect their acceptance on these forums. With my own progressive, non-conservative viewpoints, I am starting to feel how perhaps the Catholic users have felt here in the past.

My very reason for using the software, is to take a scholarly approach to the Bible and other literature, allowing me to make my own judgements on spiritual matters. I need to be free to explore on my own terms.

Is everyone welcome here?

Peace, Jonatha! *smile* You are INDEED very welcome here, and I thank you for your various contributions to the Forums!

Some of the small-minded shenanigans that bother and offend you also bother and offend me! They are so unnecessary.

However the Logos Forums are very important, quite helpful to so many people, and mostly advance love and friendship in the larger Christian Church; and I would like to see them thrive and prosper!

Please stay with us and be as positive as you can -- also pointing out in a positive AND caring way way (which you have done,eh???) some of the problems and dangers!

God has said that for his People that -- quote:

God’s Indomitable Love in Christ.

²⁸*We know that all things work for good for those who love God,* who are called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28 NABRE

Jonathan Pitts

Tolerance: The disposition or ability to accept without protest the opinions or acts of others.

Okay, so as you seem to realize, on your own definition you yourself are being "intolerant" in this very thread.

Be that as it may, however, I would like to push you further on this definition; this may seem tedious but in the end I hope instructive.

What do you mean "accept without protest"? Do you mean to assent to what is being said inwardly? Or just outwardly? Or both? Or something else?

1. I mean what the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary means.

2. I mean accept without protest, not assent.

3. I mean not feeling the need to correct others opinions or acts when they differ from our own.

4. I have a busy day and not too much time for debate.

Butters

I mean not feeling the need to correct others opinions or acts when they differ from our own.

This isn't what tolerance means actually; but okay, you just want to believe what you want to believe. I shall leave you be.

In any case, it should be clear to you now that this entire thread - where you complain about alleged intolerance of others on this board - is actually an expression of your own intolerance, exactly as you define it.

Peace.

~Butters [:)]

Paul Golder

Makes me wonder. If one studies the Scriptures, and reaches a unique viewpoint on something, but latter finds that he is in error and must yield to the orthodox opinion, why study at all in the first place?

Rich DeRuiter

In the past couple of weeks, the tone of these forums seems to have changed. I no longer feel welcome.

I just read through this thread and want to come back to this point.

First, I try to avoid theological discussions on these forums. This group of people is too diverse to have consensus on even how to have a thoughtful conversation. This is evident in this thread as well.

Second, if you think the past couple of weeks have been bad, you haven't been around that long. There have been absolutely horrible, accusatory, malicious and downright nasty threads that Logos has decided to lock and in some cases delete altogether.

Third, I'm curious about your sense of feeling "welcome." What sort of comments have made you feel that the general population that inhabit these forums doesn't want you here, or would tend to support or even allow such a sentiment?

Nearly every thread that I have subscribed to recently or made a small contribution to has degenerated into opinionated, closed minded drivel. This appears to have been mainly from an antischolarly fundamentalist or conservative point of view. Any other viewpoint is dismissed out of hand, usually without any reasoned argument.

Once again, this is nothing new. This is the internet. You've already been challenged for an over-generalization of fundamentalists, so I won't repeat that. But I would add that they should not get all the blame. There are plenty of rabidly conservative, anti-intellectual evangelicals, or reformed, or catholic, or pentecostal, or... who can be the same way. I've met them in person as well as in these forums and elsewhere. People with strong opinions can easily become suspicious of an authority, like 'scholarship' (a rather vague term, don't you agree?). History has proved them right sometimes, and wrong others. Sometimes the so-called, or self-appointed scholars have gotten things off track, and the uneducated have gotten things going right again. Scholarship is no more immune from the temptation to go beyond it's veneer of objectivity, than any other human social group. (IMHO, of course.) But I'm sure you understand that as well.

I come to the forums for advice and news on Logos Bible Software. I expect a little discussion of Biblical issues around that, but not that I should have to conform to someone else's views or that my own views will be dismissed out of hand.

Agreed. No other comment is necessary. I wish everyone had this perspective. (Oops! I just made another comment.)

Logos is used by a hugely diverse group of people: Christians of all types, other groups related to Christianity, Jews, agnostics, others. A user's theological viewpoint should not affect their acceptance on these forums. With my own progressive, non-conservative viewpoints, I am starting to feel how perhaps the Catholic users have felt here in the past.

There are those on these forums (and among my FaceBook friends) with whom I sharply disagree. Sometimes their words and comments (posted here or there) make me angry. Really. I agree that people can be quite hurtful, and sometimes intentionally so, as they disagree with positions they do not hold, or have rejected (whether in politics, or theology). Often these people quickly demonstrate that they are not able, or not willing to examine and intelligently defend their position. But offense given does not have to be offense taken. With such people (with whom further discussion would seem to be unproductive), I simply tolerate them; that is I smile, wish them well, and let it go. When I am cursed, I bless. It's really quite a freeing perspective: not to have to fix everything that's wrong with other people's arguments.

My very reason for using the software, is to take a scholarly approach to the Bible and other literature, allowing me to make my own judgements on spiritual matters. I need to be free to explore on my own terms.

Of course, you are as free in this as you choose to be. Personally, I'm not looking for scholarly interaction on these forums. It's a challenge to even find intelligent discourse, at times, about theological matters. Most of us are not scholars. That much should be obvious. For scholarly interaction, one would need to find another forum, or better yet, a group of people with whom one could interact fact to face.

Is everyone welcome here?

Actually, history has proven the answer to be a resounding "No." Those who are here to stir up trouble, continually mock, insult, or demean others, or other spiritual traditions, will be asked to leave. Ornery people, those who are merely impolite, and occasionally bad mannered, tend to be tolerated. Sometimes another forum member will challenge such behavior. With some, we have just learned to ignore them completely.

I can't speak for anyone but myself of course, but I've not seen anything in your posts that would suggest that you aren't welcome here by most of us, even if there are some who don't.

abondservant

You've already been challenged for an over-generalization of fundamentalists, so I won't repeat that.

+1 [:#]

If I may sum up the connotations of other posts in this thread succinctly; perhaps your perceived rejection is merely a reflection of your own rejection of others?

Matthew C Jones

The way I see it there are two ways of handling theological threads.

1) Totally ignore he thread without comment (Logos' desired response?)

2) If we do respond with a theological bias, prepare to read posts from those who hold alternative and contradictory perspectives. What makes us think we have a right to post a biased statement and in the name of tolerance silence all who disagree?

Jonathan Pitts

You've already been challenged for an over-generalization of fundamentalists, so I won't repeat that.
+1

If I may sum up the connotations of other posts in this thread succinctly; perhaps your perceived rejection is merely a reflection of your own rejection of others?

That's not fair.

As I made clear in one of my posts above, my objection was to unwelcoming, closed minded, pointless exchanges on threads that could otherwise be useful to more people. My mention of fundamentalism and conservatism was merely referring to what seemed to be the background to a few threads that I found unhelpful because of their closed minded antischolarly bent. I did write:

[quote]

All I am asking for is tolerance of other people's opinions when they differ from our own. Let's let everyone express their views about the books and software without any more discussion of theology than is necessary to achieve that. Hints of what each of us believe will inevitably be visible in what we write, but these forums are not the place to be correcting or dismissing other people's beliefs.

Now I feel really welcome. [:(]

George Somsel

Now I feel really welcome.

Mike Childs

Jonathan,

I certainly welcome you as a part of these forums. There is no excuse for being rude. Never. And I have at times gone back and deleted a comment or two that upon reflection I felt was rude.

These forums are not intended to be places for theological debate, but more about Logos Bible Software and how to use it.

On the other hand, there are those who feel that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is "opinionated" and "close minded". If one states a theological or Biblical position, then one should not feel slighted if others disagree.

Actually, I am opinionated, and so are you, and so is everyone. And my mind is closed about certain issues that I settled long ago - such as the deity of Jesus Christ and other core doctrines of the faith.

Strange, isn't it, that I more often find those of a progressive bent to be rude, opinionated, and close minded? [;)] Not always, but rudeness dwells on both sides of the theological divide.

My mind is always open to consider other views, but I am not going to change my mind about the core of Christian faith.

Of course, people differ as to what that core of the faith is. The main thing is that we never be rude to one another. Nor should we insult one another if we happen to differ. That has unfortunately happened, and some are more guilty of it than others. If someone is frequently rude or arrogant, I tend to just ignore them. One is certainly not going to change them.

I always try to remember that God did not call me to correct everyone's theology. When I realized that, it was a great relief! Of course, I sometimes forget that, but I am trying to remember.

Of course you are welcome here.

Bill Coley

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

The state of opinionation (try to find that one in your dictionary!) is not the exclusive province of any particular theological/political/socio-economic community. Opinions don't cause opinionation; people do.

Intolerance is a natural by-product of opinionation. When I "know" I am right and therefore believe my opinions have priority over yours, I am naturally inclined to diminish, discredit, and perhaps ultimately disallow yours.

But let's be clear: Opinionation is an arrogance whose exclusive copyright lapsed into the public domain long ago.

abondservant

You've already been challenged for an over-generalization of fundamentalists, so I won't repeat that.
+1

If I may sum up the connotations of other posts in this thread succinctly; perhaps your perceived rejection is merely a reflection of your own rejection of others?

That's not fair.

As I made clear in one of my posts above, my objection was to unwelcoming, closed minded, pointless exchanges on threads that could otherwise be useful to more people. My mention of fundamentalism and conservatism was merely referring to what seemed to be the background to a few threads that I found unhelpful because of their closed minded antischolarly bent. I did write:

[quote]

I hope my comments will not be taken as criticism of any particular group of Christians. (I acknowledge that my mentions of fundamentalism and conservatism could be interpreted that way.) I sought only to criticise those who turn useful forum threads into unwelcoming and intolerant exchanges.

Now I feel really welcome. Sad

Do you deny there is not a certain amount of irony in a post that condemns and rejects people you feel condemned and rejected by?

[quote]All I am asking for is tolerance of other people's opinions when they differ from our own.

As has been mentioned the forums are not a place to discuss our individual theology. Because its not opinions you dislike, its been the theology (once the loaded terms have been removed from your post).

I am not rejecting you. You're welcome here as far as I am concerned. Just don't become "Butt hurt" as my cousin is fond of saying, over something someone says on an internet forum.

In the end mostly all of us are still redeemed sinners. We won't be perfect this side of heaven. Despite OUR best efforts to the contrary.

Butters

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

The state of opinionation (try to find that one in your dictionary!) is not the exclusive province of any particular theological/political/socio-economic community. Opinions don't cause opinionation; people do.

Intolerance is a natural by-product of opinionation. When I "know" I am right and therefore believe my opinions have priority over yours, I am naturally inclined to diminish, discredit, and perhaps ultimately disallow yours.

But let's be clear: Opinionation is an arrogance whose exclusive copyright lapsed into the public domain long ago.

There have been a proliferation of posts just like this since this morning, in which there is a remarkable confusion, a lack of irony and self-awareness, and an almost gleeful, if unwitting, willingness to defy Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction.

I give up...lol.

~Butters [:)]

Paul Golder

...willingness to defy Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Have you not read Orwell (or watched the current media)? [;)]

Bill Coley

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

The state of opinionation (try to find that one in your dictionary!) is not the exclusive province of any particular theological/political/socio-economic community. Opinions don't cause opinionation; people do.

Intolerance is a natural by-product of opinionation. When I "know" I am right and therefore believe my opinions have priority over yours, I am naturally inclined to diminish, discredit, and perhaps ultimately disallow yours.

But let's be clear: Opinionation is an arrogance whose exclusive copyright lapsed into the public domain long ago.

There have been a proliferation of posts just like this since this morning, in which there is a remarkable confusion, a lack of irony and self-awareness, and an almost gleeful, if unwitting, willingness to defy Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction.

I give up...lol.

~Butters

An amended colloquial definition: If in response to a colloquial definition you employ Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction, you're opinionated. [:P]

JoshInRI

Mr. Pitts, I think everyone is welcome.

Not everyone can be right like me - but certainly everyone is welcome.

Hope you are chuckling or smiling just a little.

God bless your day and your posting Sir.

Jonathan Pitts

Mr. Pitts, I think everyone is welcome.

Not everyone can be right like me - but certainly everyone is welcome.

Hope you are chuckling or smiling just a little.

God bless your day and your posting Sir.

Thank you.

Mike Childs

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

Great colloquial definition. I agree. And I still think that I am opinionated, you are opinionated, everyone is. Politeness is the art of controlling one's opinionated attitude and being willing to listen to others.

George Somsel

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

I will stedfastly maintain to my dying breath that I am not opinionated. So there !

John

Is everyone welcome here?

Jonathan, I am pretty sure that Logos has welcomed all of us. If they were going to get rid of anyone, I'm pretty sure I would be one of the first ones to get the boot [A]

There are all types of people on the forum. Some are very intelligent and have valuable insight to share. Some others just think they do [;)]

In threads that veer off topic even a little bit, there is usually at least one well meaning individual who attempts to stop everyone else from having a conversation by posting the forum rules in a legalistic manner. I believe the result is that many posters, and possibly even the best posters, decide not to participate in the discussion. [:#]

So the rule designed to protect the forum actually has the opposite effect by downgrading the level of conversation.

But hey, its an imperfect world we live in. I personally do not consider a discussion about Q-theory and its alternatives to be off topic, as Logos has a dozen or so resources speaking directly to the topic. If anything, a discussion on a topic like that might lead to sales of some of those resources. But the legalists are generally not as broadminded as that.

The particular thread which you might be referring too, I made a post in and was subscribed too. I got an email notification of a message in that thread posted by a particular individual that was very nasty in its tone. Later on when I clicked the link, the message had been deleted. It was at that point I decided not to make any further posts. The same topic had been debated previously by the same individual, and did not end well.

Some people have pet views (or sacred cows for another term), and take them very personally. I believe we should not be personally attached to our beliefs. Does that make sense? As Jesus said that his doctrine was not his own (John 7:16), he had no need to take insults or challenges to his positions personally. It wasn't his own anyway. The Father who gave it to him would also be responsible for defending it. We can be the same way if we submit our beliefs to God sincerely in prayer.

So just remember that there may be lots of people who read a thread but do not post. Not because you are not welcome, but for completely different reasons. And if Logos doesn't kick you out, you are still welcome. [H]

Matthew C Jones

fundamentalist

Q: What is a "fundamentalist?"

A: the "five fundamentals":^[9]

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Believing these fundamentals does make you conservative but it does not make you anti-scholarly. Even the Pope agrees with at least 4 of the 5 (if not all 5.) The Fundamentals

Bill Coley

A colloquial definition: If you're more interested in others' hearing your opinions than your hearing theirs, you're opinionated.

Great colloquial definition. I agree. And I still think that I am opinionated, you are opinionated, everyone is. Politeness is the art of controlling one's opinionated attitude and being willing to listen to others.

Our disagreement, Michael, sounds like semantics. I think everyone has opinions, but not everyone is opinionated. You seem to think everyone is opinionated, but not everyone is polite.

You say potato, I say....

Patrick S.

Shouldn't the question be — "Is Jesus welcome in these forums?".

Josh

fundamentalist

Q: What is a "fundamentalist?"

A: the "five fundamentals":^[9]

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this

Virgin birth of Jesus

Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Believing these fundamentals does make you conservative but it does not make you anti-scholarly.

I agree.

Jack Caviness

Q: What is a "fundamentalist?"

A: the "five fundamentals":^[9]

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this

Virgin birth of Jesus

Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Believing these fundamentals does make you conservative but it does not make you anti-scholarly. Even the Pope agrees with at least 4 of the 5 (if not all 5.) The Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith

That is the correct definition, and the one to which I subscribe. However—at least in this area—a lot of theologically crazy people have stolen the label, and the mainstream media insists on labeling anyone on the lunatic fringe of society as a fundamentalist.

Don't know which definition Jonathan had in mind with his stereotyping comment, but I did feel insulted by his unwarranted attack.

David Paul

I suppose I fall a bit short of being fundamentalist...not much, just enough to not be wrong. [:P]

Jonathan Pitts

Don't know which definition Jonathan had in mind with his stereotyping comment, but I did feel insulted by his unwarranted attack.

I am sorry that you felt insulted.

As I have tried repeatedly to make clear in my posts here, my objection was not to fundamentalism or conservatism—I have no objection to people holding or expressing those views—they simply seemed to be the background to a series of posts on various threads that made me feel unwelcome for other reasons.

I probably worded my first post badly. I probably should not have used those two words. I'm sorry for that, as I seem to have been misunderstood and to have offended some people.

My objection was to the closed mindedness of a large number of posts that I received by email from threads that I had subscribed to. There was a dismissal of anything (even quite conventional conclusions) that had been derived from scholarship. It was the out of hand dismissal of other people's contrasting views that I had a problem with, the expectation that everyone would agree with the posters' views. This made me feel unwelcome to contribute to or read threads which otherwise could have been useful.

I also objected to threads that become a pointless exchange between two or three posters, which divert the thread from the needs of the original poster. This again makes the forums unwelcoming to others and makes receiving emails of posts tedious rather than informative.

The last two paragraphs apply whatever the posters' theological background.

I am sorry if I expressed it badly, but please try to distinguish the underlying general aim of my posts and specifics of the threads that provoked them.

What I am asking for is tolerance of other people's views, not because we agree with them but because this is not the place to challenge them. Everyone should be able to come to these forums, read and make contributions on the subjects of Logos and their resources, without feeling the need to conform to other people's beliefs and opinions. For me, that freedom was lost in several threads that I read over the past few weeks.

I am sorry if I have failed in my own tolerance. It remains a noble aim none the less.

Josh

What I am asking for is tolerance of other people's views, not because we agree with them but because this is not the place to challenge them. Everyone should be able to come to these forums, read and make contributions on the subjects of Logos and their resources, without feeling the need to conform to other people's beliefs and opinions.

Is this thread an exception?

Jack Caviness

What I am asking for is tolerance of other people's views, not because we agree with them but because this is not the place to challenge them

I am sorry if I have failed in my own tolerance. It remains a noble aim none the less.

As others have noted, tolerance is not a noble aim, but politeness is quite noble.

tom

Believing these fundamentals does make you conservative

I respectfully disagree. I agree with four of the five, and I AM NOT a conservative.

The one that I (and very likely the Pope) will disagree with is with the word "inerrancy." I do agree with the word "inspiration."

TCBlack

Is everyone welcome here?

Yes.

This thread is now pointless, the question has been answered.

Jack Caviness

Is everyone welcome here?
Yes.
This thread is now pointless, the question has been answered.

If only we had Halo Hound to show us how to hijack the thread [:D]

TCBlack

If only we had Halo Hound to show us how to hijack the thread

He taught me everything I know.

I just got back from a run with my son, and I'm sweating on my keyboard.

George Somsel

If only we had Halo Hound to show us how to hijack the thread
He taught me everything I know.
I just got back from a run with my son, and I'm sweating on my keyboard.

Shall we discuss the effects of saline contained in sweat on the keyboard?

tom

Is everyone welcome here?

I have been thinking about this question, and my answer is yes and no. Almost everyone here will say yes with their words, and some people here do say no with their actions.

Please excuse me if I cross a line with this post as I share my 2 cents as I explain why.

I have heard the word "loved' quite a few times in this thread. However, love is not a Christian characteristic - it is more of a humanist characteristic. While Jesus has called us to love God with all of our hearts, with all of our souls, and with all of our strength, and with all or our minds; and to love our neighbors as ourselves," this is type of love is not unique to the Christian faith. You will find something like this in most faiths/philosophies. What I should be saying is that love is not unique to the Christian faith.

What is unique to the Christian faith is God incarnate in the person of Jesus and the cross. We cannot skip over the cross to get to the resurrection, we cannot go to the side of the cross, we cannot go over the cross, we cannot go under the cross - we must go through the cross to get to the resurrection.

Therefore, imho, to act as a Christian we need to act like Jesus - God incarnate. Jesus - God incarnate - welcomed, ate, and drunk with sinners; we need to do the same. God incarnate so wanted to have fellowship with humanity that God incarnate died on the cross. IMHO, some of the threads here are simply not welcoming.

This is why I answered the question with a yes and with a no.

Lee

@Jonathan

A quick word to you. Keep coming back. You may have something good to offer, to teach some of us here. You are valued. Look beyond some of the problems here, and keep going after the truth.

David Paul

Wow...now someone has brought the cross into this. Probably the least welcoming thing you could do, though I realize you don't recognize why.

If you think that love is found in the world, then you REALLY have a different understanding of love than I do. Love, by definition, can only be found in the Bible...and just reading through it won't release it. It is archetypally manifested in the cross, but not in the way usually thought. This is the primary thing for people to drink in and never forget...

LOVE SAVES. If something isn't working toward that goal, it isn't love. That may seem too narrow or overly bound, but I am 100% certain it is true.

That said, I don't expect anyone to understand what I just said. If you do understand, you probably don't understand.

I don't know if this comment of mine from earlier today will shed any light or not...

Approaching this from another perspective, tolerance nearly always "holds its tongue", but love is rarely capable of such behavior. "Leaving others be" to harm themselves in ignorance is hate, not love. But love knows that it can't force others, so after a word or two, it often bides its time. Many Christians' concept of love is human, not Godly. He is only gentle when gentle is sufficient, and it rarely is. He is trying (in a manner of speaking) to save lives, not make people feel good. As body builders and triage attendants know, pain is often the only path to follow to achieve success.

Chances are the same predispositions that exist before reading that paragraph will remain after. Love, and the cross, just aren't what most people think. A big part of the problem has to do with that "fundamentalist" post earlier in this thread. The reason I'm not fundamentalist is because one of the "obviously true" points simply isn't. Or at least it isn't in the way usually interpreted.

Butters

LOVE SAVES. If something isn't working toward that goal, it isn't love. That may seem too narrow or overly bound, but I am 100% certain it is true.

I agree about the nature of love. It's not a vague and sentimental, subjective feeling - which more often than not verges upon a kind of indifference.

Moreover, it's true that no one understands that love completely, in part because it's a mystery.

However, by mystery (another word that has been thoroughly deracinated into incoherence), I do not mean "opaque" - rather, by "mystery" I am using the word in its true sense: that that love is so immense we cannot even remotely begin to comprehend it; so profound it cannot be plumbed.

Cheers,

~Butters [:)]

Matthew C Jones

A big part of the problem has to do with that "fundamentalist" post earlier in this thread.

Hmm. Which "fundamentalist " post might that be?

The reason I'm not fundamentalist is because one of the "obviously true" points simply isn't.

If 20% of the fundamentals is incorrect then 80% are correct At least two-thirds of the synoptic problem solutions are incorrect (mutually exclusive theories, they be.) It is nice to be disagreeing with you again, David. [H]

Lee

Perhaps Logos should not discourage debate and the tossing of mindless, irresponsible remarks here and there. This has proved to be in vain.

Perhaps Logos should simply follow the lead of some other Forums, and create a "Miscellaneous" category.

In this new sub-forum, all Prophets, Psychoanalysts, Armchair Theologians, Compulsive Jokers, Heroes (a.k.a. Martin Luther II), Mystics, messiahs, Misquoters and Misunderstanders, Has-beens and Wanna-bes can express their repressed selves to their delight.

Heck, give them all MVP status in that sub-forum, and give them moderation rights over each other. That ought to keep them occupied. But before that, contact legal so that the usual disclaimers are in place, esp. against libel.

Then, hopefully, we will see fewer plaintive cries, like the one that started this thread.

Some people will always want to prove something and to have one up on another person. It's the internet culture now. One can say anything without responsibility. One can assume any persona and fulfil every whim. So let these people have a place to vent. See? Like moth to a flame, here they come...

MJ. Smith

from the blurb for Fundamentalism: Anthropological Approaches (Anthropology, Culture and Society) by Jock Stirrat:

"In this innovative book, Jock Stirrat deconstructs the concept of 'fundamentalism'. He argues that a word first applied to the emergence of new movements in North American Protestantism, has now been co-opted as a form of shorthand for anything that we wish to construe as irrational, dangerous, or 'other'. Anything, that is, which we see as hostile to the rational, progressive, secular modernity of the West.

Stirrat examines a variety of different types of fundamentalism throughout the world. Looking at the variations of Islamic fundamentalisms in Palestine, Egypt and Afghanistan, Stirrat contrasts these transnational movements with the more nationalist and modernizing fundamentalisms associated with the countries of the Hindu and Buddhist world. He draws further comparisons with the emergence of a proselytizing Christian fundamentalism, particularly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In conclusion, Stirrat argues that fundamentalism is, quite literally, a false category - the product of a very specific set of cultural categories which developed in post-Enlightenment Europe.'

Matthew C Jones

"In this innovative book, Jock Stirrat deconstructs the concept of 'fundamentalism'. He argues that a word first applied to the emergence of new movements in North American Protestantism, has now been co-opted as a form of shorthand for anything that we wish to construe as irrational, dangerous, or 'other'. Anything, that is, which we see as hostile to the rational, progressive, secular modernity of the West.

So Jock Stirrat agrees with the Wikipedia article about the true origin of the term "fundamentalist." (That would make Jock a scholar and in agreement with my use of the word in its original meaning.) While the rest of the uneducated world has hijacked the word in favour of a colloquial use of anything negative and not to be tolerated. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Would that make "fundamentalists" out of people who criticize others as "fundamentalists?" [*-)]