Is everyone welcome here?

Richard DeRuiter said:

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?

Paul Golder said:

George Somsel said:

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]

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.

Jonathan Pitts said:

abondservant said:

Richard DeRuiter said:

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. 

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 said:

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

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

Paul Golder said:

Butters said:

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 [:)]

Butters said:

Bill Coley said:

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]

No, not everyone is welcome here.

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

Bill Coley said:

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 [:)]

Jonathan Pitts said:

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]

Michael Childs said:

Bill Coley said:

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....

Butters said:

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?

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...

Jonathan Pitts said:

Jack Caviness said:

Jonathan Pitts said:

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

Jonathan Pitts said:

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 [:)]   

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.