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

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525643#Comment_525643

Would you like a polishing cloth for your halo?

Incorruptible, no tarnish or fading here [:D]

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525599#Comment_525599

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525647#Comment_525647

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?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525644#Comment_525644

Would you like a polishing cloth for your halo?

Incorruptible, no tarnish or fading here

And I thought you were a real, live person. [:D]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525651#Comment_525651

I think the angel's comment is correct. Absolutes don't work well in a mixed world of toleration. But a special ingredient called 'rationalizing' allows absolutes to exist among the tolerant. My Mother rationalized a lot in order to tolerate the beings that accompanied her leaving the hospital.

Jonathan's generalizing concerning the fundamentalists is spot-on. Their overly liberal comments requires that us literalists hide behind irony and mystical nothingness to avoid being heretic-ized. Ah, yes. The Teacher of Righteousness vs the smoothies.

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525647#Comment_525647

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.

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525660#Comment_525660

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525669#Comment_525669

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525660#Comment_525660

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525710#Comment_525710

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525714#Comment_525714

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

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

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525715#Comment_525715

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

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

I know, don't remind me....lol. I don't have a television (and didn't grow up with one) and every time I am in an airport I am reminded of how utterly bereft of reasoning our public "conversations" are.

Cheers!

~Butters [:)]

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525635#Comment_525635

You're going to have to clarify that for me.

Let me put it this way: Suppose, just suppose that we are living in a day and age where tolerance and acceptance are desired and striven for above all. Would not the eventual denouement be the loss of that which is absolute?

Well, the absolute doesn't depend upon our perceiving it, thank the Lord! So the absolute would still exist. It is we who are dependent and contingent, and radically so.

However, you are correct that culturally, philosophically, and theologically, we would suffer more and more from our own delusions of grandeur brought on by our sinful nature; we would find ourselves increasingly smothered in a "cloud of unknowing;" and we would live increasingly in a kind of puzzling contradiction: that we relativize the absolute; and absolutize the relative.

Cheers,

~Butters [:)]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525723#Comment_525723

...that we relativize the absolute; and absolutize the relative.

Are you sure that you haven't been watching the news or politics lately? [;)]

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525714#Comment_525714

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525803#Comment_525803

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.

Daniel Brueno

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525754#Comment_525754

I imagine many thought Jesus was intolerable. This verse comes to mind, 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Was this being intolerable to the many followers with hope in Jesus? Was it intolerable of Jesus or was it the people who were being intolerable to his word?

Just my mind going a thousand mile a minute.....

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525808#Comment_525808

No, not everyone is welcome here.

If you do not have internet connectivity you may not enter.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525710#Comment_525710

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.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525754#Comment_525754

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

LOL! [:P]

~Butters [:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525828#Comment_525828

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 !

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525842#Comment_525842

Only the Good die young, George. [:P]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525843#Comment_525843

Only the Good die young, George.

Since I'm only 38, I suppose I could be considered to be young. [;)]

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]

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525828#Comment_525828

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525716#Comment_525716

I know, don't remind me....lol. I don't have a television (and didn't grow up with one) and every time I am in an airport I am reminded of how utterly bereft of reasoning our public "conversations" are.

Cheers!

~Butters

This makes me wonder how you settled upon the username Butters (with included avatar). Is he not a character on the television show South Park?

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525862#Comment_525862

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525862#Comment_525862

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525874#Comment_525874

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

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525892#Comment_525892

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525902#Comment_525902

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?

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525905#Comment_525905

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?

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

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525873#Comment_525873

I know, don't remind me....lol. I don't have a television (and didn't grow up with one) and every time I am in an airport I am reminded of how utterly bereft of reasoning our public "conversations" are.

Cheers!

~Butters

This makes me wonder how you settled upon the username Butters (with included avatar). Is he not a character on the television show South Park?

It's funny, I've never owned a television and never liked it on the whole; however, this isn't to say there weren't a few shows worth watching. I used to go over to a friend's house to watch Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, for example. [:)] But that was pretty much the extent of my television watching when I was a kid.

Now that one can stream things via the web, I watch a few things via the web and one of them is South Park (the other is Breaking Bad). I love watching South Park! I find it absolutely hilarious. [:$]

~Butters [:)]

ps., this is great - it's his last words on the show; and he himself was dying rapidly, and it's almost as if he's looking into a mirror as he peers down through the ice.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M76nPnaJ7G4&feature=player_embedded:550:0]

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525906#Comment_525906

Jonathan

You are not the first to express thoughts as you have on the forum. It is a noble aim. But history shows...we are sinful and this problem will continue. Even scholars can be guilty of the same problem..because even scholars are filled with pride, sin and stubbornness. No group, liberal or conservative, fundamental or progressive, foolish or wise will escape this age old problem. A noble aim. But history shows...

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525906#Comment_525906

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

Personally, I think people really need to re-evaluate their use of this word "tolerance" - it's being profoundly misused; and is being treated as if it were a kind of high virtue (it is not.)

Have you noticed that no great thinker, no philosopher, no theologian has ever talked about "tolerance" as a virtue?

Indeed, one might say that "tolerance" - conceived negatively, that is to say, untempered by positive values - is a thoroughly vapid concept; and one that would only be considered a virtue in society that is so afraid of actually holding and expressing positive views, that it ties itself into knots trying to maintain that pose. And like most poses, it is thoroughly self-deceptive.

"Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence." G.K. Chesterton

Cheers,

~Butters [:)]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525902#Comment_525902

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525862#Comment_525862

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."

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525914#Comment_525914

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.

There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525914#Comment_525914

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

And that is key here.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525921#Comment_525921

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.

There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.

This is just going around in circles.

Maybe you need to be more "open-minded" about the possibility that your use of the word "intolerance" is incoherent, or "close minded," or "intolerant"? (On your own terms and their use of them; not mine, mind you!)

But I suspect the problem goes deeper than this.

I suspect that you're in the habit of seeking approval and affirmation from people.

Among people of your sort (the sort of people who use the word "intolerant" the way you do), I have often suspected that they believe the point of conversations and discussions is to affirm one another. And that the whole point of a social order is to embrace everything and everyone.

Would you say this is an accurate portrayal?

~Butters [:)]

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525929#Comment_525929

To promote tolerance is not a morally neutral position, it is actually quite an aggressive position (which of course does not mean that it is necessarily wrong)

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525933#Comment_525933

I will NEVER tolerate any position that my judgment deems to be against the expressed will of YHWH. I will exercise patience with those who hold such positions, however, in the same way YHWH does--right up until He wipes such nonsense off the face of the earth.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525921#Comment_525921

There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.

You may have spoken your inevitable extinction.

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525935#Comment_525935

There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.

You may have spoken your inevitable extinction.

Thank you. I am already feeling suicidal today.

That really helps.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525932#Comment_525932

This is just going around in circles.

These posts always do. Call it tolerance, respect, politeness. Argue over semantics. It is most likely that most people reading and responding to this thread knows that Jonathan follows a long line of others who have expressed a longing for a bit of kindness in the forums. But these threads always go in circles. And always will.

Jonathan, you are welcome in the forums. There are thousands in these forums and one cannot actually read and respond to every post. So we choose to ignore many threads. And when threads get out of hand, we learn to ignore them to. The forum is a great tool. You can contribute, but more often than not, you can learn from others as I have learned from others.

Hopefully this helps you and others.

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/525932#Comment_525932

This is just going around in circles.

Maybe you need to be more "open-minded" about the possibility that your use of the word "intolerance" is incoherent, or "close minded," or "intolerant"? (On your own terms and their use of them; not mine, mind you!)

As I wrote before, I use the word as it is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. If some people would prefer the word patience for that meaning, fine.

But I suspect the problem goes deeper than this.

I suspect that you're in the habit of seeking approval and affirmation from people.

I certainly don't like conflict.

Among people of your sort (the sort of people who use the word "intolerant" the way you do), I have often suspected that they believe the point of conversations and discussions is to affirm one another.

The purpose of conversations on the Logos forums is to affirm and support one another in our use of Logos Bible Software.

There may be places where intolerance is appropriate, but this is not one of them.

And that the whole point of a social order is to embrace everything and everyone.

You may disagree, but I believe that the whole point of the Christian social order is to embrace everyone.