Is everyone welcome here?
Comments
-
TCBlack said:
Yes.Jonathan Pitts said:Is everyone welcome here?
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]
0 -
JRS said:David Paul said:
Good grief! It took a while, but I got it. Probably a little too obscure esp. for the non-USA forum users or anyone under 30 years old (he said it in 1992!).
[:D] Wow...I guess you're right about that. I remember being in college at the time, but I guess it was while getting my master's, not my bachelor's.
Unfortunately, the poor guy was found dead in a pool..."just getting along" didn't ever seem to get him along the road to right living. Tolerance can do little to save the flesh, and nothing to save the spirit.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
He taught me everything I know.Jack Caviness said:If only we had Halo Hound to show us how to hijack the thread
I just got back from a run with my son, and I'm sweating on my keyboard.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
TCBlack said:
He taught me everything I know.Jack Caviness said:If only we had Halo Hound to show us how to hijack the thread
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?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Jonathan Pitts said:
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.
0 -
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...
David Paul said: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.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
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 [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
David Paul said:
A big part of the problem has to do with that "fundamentalist" post earlier in this thread.
Hmm. Which "fundamentalist " post might that be?
David Paul said: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]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
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...
0 -
Lee said:
Perhaps Logos should not discourage debate and the tossing of mindless remarks here and there.
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, Inside Jokers, Heros (a.k.a. Martin Luther II), Mystics, messiahs, Misquoters and Misunderstanders, Would-bes 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.
I love reading your posts Lee! Given their general confusion, their near total lack of reasoning, and their overall nastiness (if there is a less inflammatory way to describe that^ post there, someone please advise me), their evidential value with respect to everything I've said (particularly the below) in this thread is most appreciated:
Cheers!
~Butters
p.s., keep it coming my good man!
[center]_______[/center]
It's funny, it never ever fails. I have seen it over and over again in many different environments.
It's invariably the very people who continually trumpet the importance of civility in discussion - and are ever calling for "tolerance" and "politeness" - who are the quickest to display the very behavior they rail against.
Absolutely classic. LOL. [:D]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Lee said:
In this new sub-forum, all Prophets, Psychoanalysts, Armchair Theologians, Compulsive Jokers, Heros (a.k.a. Martin Luther II), Mystics, messiahs, Misquoters and Misunderstanders, Has-beens and Wanna-bes can express their repressed selves to their delight.
You misspelled Heroes. (How is that for accurate quoting?)
Lee said:But before that, contact legal so that the usual disclaimers are in place, esp. against libel.
Libel? Thinking about suing, are we? [:O] Anything to silence the stupid people.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Jonathan Pitts said:
There just seemed to have been an increase in intolerance in the last few threads
Jonathan, most of your observations are justified. However, if you stick with the forums for a while you will discover that intolerant threads appear to come in clumps - if one thread has gone awry, the tone of the forums allows other threads to do likewise. They will die down and the forums will return to a more friendly environment. There are a few forum users who repeatedly state positions in abrasive language, but as you get to know them through them through their posts, it becomes easy to cut through the abrasiveness to what they are trying to say. And, yes, there may be a handful of people in whose posts are difficult to find redeeming value in. However, if you need to practice self-control, they do serve a useful personal development tool - one I often flunk when certain people push my buttons.[:$]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Some of us become fixtures.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Jonathan Pitts said:
There just seemed to have been an increase in intolerance in the last few threads
Jonathan, most of your observations are justified. However, if you stick with the forums for a while you will discover that intolerant threads appear to come in clumps - if one thread has gone awry, the tone of the forums allows other threads to do likewise. They will die down and the forums will return to a more friendly environment. There are a few forum users who repeatedly state positions in abrasive language, but as you get to know them through them through their posts, it becomes easy to cut through the abrasiveness to what they are trying to say. And, yes, there may be a handful of people in whose posts are difficult to find redeeming value in. However, if you need to practice self-control, they do serve a useful personal development tool - one I often flunk when certain people push my buttons.
Amazing, almost like clockwork...lol.
First, you refer to "intolerant threads." We not only have "intolerant" people, "intolerant" language, but now how whole threads are "intolerant". By this I presume you mean that someone's viewpoint has - God forbid - actually faced a challenge? [:O] O, heavens! Really?
Second, your post drips with condescension and an assumed "I'm-above-it-all" superiority that is decidedly unhelpful and passive aggressive.
Third, you then go on to hurl insults at unnamed persons, all the while pretending that you are so "tolerant". It's almost breathtaking in its lack of ironic self-awareness.
Oh well, at least you haven't yet hurled the "sick and pitiable" insult yet. LOL. [H]
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
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.'
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Lee said:
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.
And name them all "Lee."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Super Tramp said:
Bart Ehrman knows this and fully accepts that his ideas will be challenged. That is precisely why he publishes books. To shrink from questioning the new idea is not scholarly at all.
Note, however, there are implicit social/scholarly "rules" for these challenges: Grice formulates them as:
"Grice's Maxims
- The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.
-
The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.
- The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the discussion.
- The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.
As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap, as regards the length of what one says, between the maxims of quantity and manner; this overlap can be explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors."
You can find other similar formulations. I consider them to reflect the minimum requirements for a useful conversation - whether I am trying to learn from or persuade or explore with person. In fact, I find them useful guidelines when I'm debating with myself. And, if one is following them, one is rarely called impolite, intolerant or close-minded."
Super Tramp said:There was once a fellow who nailed a list of 95 theses to a door. How dare he be so "impolite" towards the Church!
You're talking about that Augustinian monk who was having a nice Catholic debate with a Dominican at the time. That's not impolite. That's family. (Disclosure: this coming March I gain a Lutheran pastor daughter-in-law).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
"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?" [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
And, if one is following them, one is rarely called impolite, intolerant or close-minded."
Well, to return to another discussion, you said once that you live in a very small community; and I do believe that you must if you believe this^
All you have to do, is just to take certain positions - say, to argue against gay marriage, just for example - and however politely, rationally, and reasonably one argues for them, you will be called everything from "impolite" to "intolerant" to "close-minded."
This is just a reality of what is called "postmodern discourse" - and you will find it prevalent especially among highly educated, wealthy people who live in urban areas. It's a veritable plague.
If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to take you to a cocktail party in Boston here, or in Manhattan, and you can see for yourself.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
by thinking of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors."
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I was not invited to the table when Grice coined his maxims. He just could not bring himself to tolerate my kind.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
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.
Very interesting and perceptive. There are many such words which have been de-racinated and hollowed out of all specific meaning, and are now use as a general pejorative.
[quote] Would that make "fundamentalists" out of people who criticize others as "fundamentalists?"
yep.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
M.J. Smith said:
You can find other similar formulations. I consider them to reflect the minimum requirements for a useful conversation - whether I am trying to learn from or persuade or explore with person. In fact, I find them useful guidelines when I'm debating with myself. And, if one is following them, one is rarely called impolite, intolerant or close-minded."
You're forgetting that we are speaking of "Christians" so you can expect to be called anything but your father's progeny.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Butters said:
you said once that you live in a very small community;
I said that I grew up in a very small community in which two of my great-great grandfathers were a homesteading founders. My Mother, on the other hand, comes from a very academic background. I spent my career at a major university in Seattle. Other post-high school homes include Boston, San Francisco, and Beloit, Wisconsin.
As for Manhattan, I can just drop in on my cousin and his very Jewish family. Oops, we have great fun discussing political issues. Maybe my Bostonian great aunt giving Mrs. Dean Rusk a piece of her mind regarding the Vietnam War during a Washington luncheon set a bad example. BTW: Mrs. Rusk found 95 year-old Aunt Harriet delightful precisely because she was willing to engage in an open, polite, respectful debate.
Butters said:All you have to do, is just to take certain positions - say, to argue against gay marriage, just for example - and however politely, rationally, and reasonably one argues for them, you will be called everything from "impolite" to "intolerant" to "close-minded."
That is not my experience. Now if I were foolish enough to present my position in an impolite, intolerant or close-minded manner, I would probably be called out on it.
Butters said:This is just a reality of what is called "postmodern discourse" - and you will find it prevalent especially among highly educated, wealthy people who live in urban areas. It's a veritable plague.
Maybe my problem is that I tend to know educated urbanites (and ruralites) who are not wealthy ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I don't think it impolite to disagree either. My siblings disagreed all the time. My kids have lively debates often. It is a family thing.MJ. Smith said:You're talking about that Augustinian monk who was having a nice Catholic debate with a Dominican at the time. That's not impolite. That's family.
Another point about Grice; His maxims are intended to persuade the opponent to his side. My posts are not necessarily to persuade an opponent but may sometimes be for the benefit of a spectator. When John Lennox and Richard Dawkins had a debate neither man hoped to persuade the other. They were speaking to the audience.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
That is not my experience. Now if I were foolish enough to present my position in an impolite, intolerant or close-minded manner, I would probably be called out on it.
Well, it's worse than that.
If you were to just say that you are against gay marriage (again, just to pick an example, I can give you hundreds) you will be called "intolerant."
It's the position itself - and not anything else - that provokes the liberal/progressive labeling: "intolerant," "close-minded."
THAT^ is why there is such a disconnect in this thread. These are words that are used by liberal/progressives to silence discussion on certain topics; and most especially, to silence certain perspectives on certain topics.
After all, what does "close-minded" even mean? It's not even coherent. We are none of us "open minded." As soon as someone hurls the word "close-minded" at someone they are at that very moment being "close-minded." And ironically, this is especially true of the people who wield that term - they are often the most "close-minded" (using their definition) people I know towards viewpoints not their own.
And what does "intolerant" even mean? As it's used it's utterly incoherent. At the very moment a person uses the word "intolerance", under their very own definition they are being "intolerant" at that very moment.
We've seen in this very thread that the people who continually harp about the need for "politeness" and "civility" in discussions are the VERY SAME people who are the first ones to abandon civility and politeness to the point of utter nastiness.
And that's just the beginning. I could go on and on. I am not alone in discerning this; this is widely described and discussed among people who can still actually think and perceive - because they are not substituting an ideology for actually "thinking" and "perceiving".
Anyway, the problem is, if a person subscribes to, or has osmotically absorbed and unwittingly affirmed as valid, this very mode of "discourse" - which tyrannically controls what is allowed to be talked about and what perspectives are allowed to be articulated - then such a person may not notice this phenomenon. I am not saying this describes you, though it is a possibility.
I do say, however, that all of this^ is at work in this thread. And it is important - just as this discussion in this thread is important - because truth is infinitely more valuable than ideologies (which, after all, are a kind of wet blanket to the mind), and more precious even than personal feelings.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
I just deleted over 65 emails, responses from this thread. I had to unsubscribe from it. After reading all the posts, I cant figure out why. The old phrase "much ado about nothing" comes to mind.
0 -
Of all the things to talk about, talking about how to talk about things is certainly the most circular.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Butters said:
If you were to just say that you are against gay marriage (again, just to pick an example, I can give you hundreds) you will be called "intolerant."
Hummmmm, I know Seattle has a laid-back reputation, but I can say I am against gay marriage (and why) in a gathering of my gay daughter's friends and not be called intolerant. If that were not my experience, I would reflect on how I might better express my position.
Butters said:It's the position itself - and not anything else - that provokes the liberal/progressive labeling: "intolerant," "close-minded."
Hummmmm, I guess I need to relabel the friends I thought of as liberal/progressive. Given one old-style socialist grandfather (born 1870) I thought I'd recognize a liberal.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Butters said:
These are words that are used by liberal/progressives to silence discussion on certain topics; and most especially, to silence certain perspectives on certain topics.
In the thread on the "Synoptic Problem" there was no discord until Lee took Denise to task for differing from the accepted "scholarly" perspectives. My first post was to support the statement Denise made. Lee took offence with my agreeing with a view. I did not, at that moment, attack any view. I only supported a view alternative to the "accepted' view.
I still do not think my taking issue with the Q hypothesis was what started the debating. I believe it was my challenging "accepted scholarship" that got the feathers ruffled.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I believe it was my challenging "accepted scholarship" that got the feathers ruffled.
I always loved the professors who began each term with a disclaimer "At least half of what I am teaching you is not true. Unfortunately, we don't know which half."
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Super Tramp said:Butters said:
These are words that are used by liberal/progressives to silence discussion on certain topics; and most especially, to silence certain perspectives on certain topics.
In the thread on the "Synoptic Problem" there was no discord until Lee took Denise to task for differing from the accepted "scholarly" perspectives. My first post was to support the statement Denise made. Lee took offence with my agreeing with a view. I did not, at that moment, attack any view. I only supported a view alternative to the "accepted' view.
I still do not think my taking issue with the Q hypothesis was what started the debating. I believe it was my challenging "accepted scholarship" that got the feathers ruffled.
Nope. Nope and nope.
I took Denise to task for sarcastically and/or flippantly proferring as fact an explanation of synoptic gospel provenance: There's group A, then there's group B, then there's group C who thinks that both are not consistent.
Then, I took Super Tramp to task for lambasting all seminaries. Whether I did so politely, or sowed "discord", is something for the reader of that thread to judge. The reader can also judge for himself whether I have, at any time, supported Ehrman's views or the Q theory.
Then I took Denise and Super tramp to task for mentioning Jesus and Luther in rationalising their actions and trying to lay it on poor Jonathan again.
Then I realised that SuperTramp was fighting Ehrman's demons all along, and in so doing, he confused me for his bitter enemy and an advocate of some imagined, offensive doctrine. It further dawned on me that SuperTramp seriously thought he was doing a Luther by his crass actions, including a post which he later pulled to maintain unity. He was starting to compare himself with Martin Luther!
Then I tried to shut up, unless people tried to cast aspersions on my doctrine or motivations again. So, feel free to read the threads! It's all there.
Butters? Oh, this sort belongs to another category altogether. We've all met types like that....
George Somsel said:And name them all "Lee."
Oh, excellent cheap shot, old curmudgeonly George Somsel. Your intellect, integrity and faith shine through there. You do your family proud, you do.
More and more, it seems to me that Logos should open a Miscellaneous sub-forum to capture this sort of web traffic. When even MVPs and long-timers brazenly flaunt their creds and earn mutual backslaps like this, the problem is essentially recurrent and unpreventable. The irresponsible remarks and trash posts will continue whether or not there is a "gentlemen's agreement" not to touch theological subjects. Ultimately the cause of them is not the topic per se, but the godlike perpetrators behind the keyboard who owe accountability to nobody. You can't clean it up. You need to move it elsewhere, or stand to lose the kind of traffic that would actually benefit this place.
David Paul said:Sorry to hear you find this forum so irritating. Maybe you should try Desitin. It's what my mom used on me.
David Paul said:Jonathan Pitts said:There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.
You may have spoken your inevitable extinction.
David Paul said:JRS said:David Paul said:Good grief! It took a while, but I got it. Probably a little too obscure esp. for the non-USA forum users or anyone under 30 years old (he said it in 1992!).
Wow...I guess you're right about that. I remember being in college at the time, but I guess it was while getting my master's, not my bachelor's.Unfortunately, the poor guy was found dead in a pool..."just getting along" didn't ever seem to get him along the road to right living. Tolerance can do little to save the flesh, and nothing to save the spirit.
Butters said:MJ. Smith said:Jonathan Pitts said:There just seemed to have been an increase in intolerance in the last few threads
Jonathan, most of your observations are justified. However, if you stick with the forums for a while you will discover that intolerant threads appear to come in clumps - if one thread has gone awry, the tone of the forums allows other threads to do likewise. They will die down and the forums will return to a more friendly environment. There are a few forum users who repeatedly state positions in abrasive language, but as you get to know them through them through their posts, it becomes easy to cut through the abrasiveness to what they are trying to say. And, yes, there may be a handful of people in whose posts are difficult to find redeeming value in. However, if you need to practice self-control, they do serve a useful personal development tool - one I often flunk when certain people push my buttons.
Amazing, almost like clockwork...lol.
First, you refer to "intolerant threads." We not only have "intolerant" people, "intolerant" language, but now how whole threads are "intolerant". By this I presume you mean that someone's viewpoint has - God forbid - actually faced a challenge?
O, heavens! Really? Second, your post drips with condescension and an assumed "I'm-above-it-all" superiority that is decidedly unhelpful and passive aggressive.
Third, you then go on to hurl insults at unnamed persons, all the while pretending that you are so "tolerant". It's almost breathtaking in its lack of ironic self-awareness.
Oh well, at least you haven't yet hurled the "sick and pitiable" insult yet. LOL.
~Butters
Denise said:This thread is really good; people shouldn't be so intolerant of other people's intolerance.
That's why I'm so intolerant of people that express 'humility'. 'Polite'? Who (not counting Graham and the Marks)?
Let's always remember Jesus was not welcomed by humans (the synoptics emphasize it was Satan and his minions that DID see the problem.)
Super Tramp said:Lee said:And what was it in the next "quote" that belittles you ... unless, unless you actually think you are like Luther, posting 95 Theses against the wrongfulness and excesses of his day. You would actually mis-read/mis-quote me, attribute Ehrmanism to me, post your illogical diatribes, and compare your crass acts with Luther?
I fall short of Luther in one respect; I only killed one holy cow with my posts, Luther killed 94 more than I with his hammer and nails.If it were not for the content of my post (believing God is able to preserve his inspired Word) there would be less contention.
Oh, Yeah, there was that mockery of "scholars"...
You know, that was probably where I lost the audience,
Certainly before the Q-tip cartoon.
Don'cha' think?
Bye, Lee.
Super Tramp said:Lee said:In this new sub-forum, all Prophets, Psychoanalysts, Armchair Theologians, Compulsive Jokers, Heros (a.k.a. Martin Luther II), Mystics, messiahs, Misquoters and Misunderstanders, Has-beens and Wanna-bes can express their repressed selves to their delight.
You misspelled Heroes. (How is that for accurate quoting?)
Lee said:But before that, contact legal so that the usual disclaimers are in place, esp. against libel.
Libel? Thinking about suing, are we?
Anything to silence the stupid people.George Somsel said:M.J. Smith said:You can find other similar formulations. I consider them to reflect the minimum requirements for a useful conversation - whether I am trying to learn from or persuade or explore with person. In fact, I find them useful guidelines when I'm debating with myself. And, if one is following them, one is rarely called impolite, intolerant or close-minded."
You're forgetting that we are speaking of "Christians" so you can expect to be called anything but your father's progeny.
In many other reputable forums, Christian or otherwise, trash posts like these would have quickly earned suspensions or outright bans.
0 -
I see the thread is 10 pages long now. Surely you all have solved the forum issues and the Q theory debate by now? [H]
0 -
Guys, guys, guys...
Has anyone noticed that since posting this...
Jonathan Pitts said:Thank you. I am already feeling suicidal today.
That really helps.
and this...
Jonathan Pitts said:Please give me a break here. I'm not at my best.
that Jonathan has fallen silent.......
Does endless heated discussions about whatever, and who is 'right', really matter when a brother has shared personally like the above.
Jonathan, on behalf of everyone I apologise if your original query (from the heart) has not been responded to. Of course you, and everyone, are welcome — because Christ is here in your brothers and sisters. He may be difficult to see through the clouded glass of our personalities — but He is here.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Has anyone noticed that since posting this... that Jonathan has fallen silent.......
[Y]
I did notice that. You're thinking what I'm thinking. In fact I prayed for him. I invite others to pray for him as well. Sometimes people just need encouragement to get through.
Jonathan, if you're reading this, please come through. You're ok in my book. You can get through this: the journey isn't ended!
0 -
I was well into a reply when I realized there were at least three reasons it was pointless to continue.
I will simply say that I have already established the facthood of my statement below. YHWH created the world and He is absolutely devoid of tolerance. Jonathan may not realize the consequence of his credo...so I spelled it out to him. He can take the easy way and talk about "quitting" if He wants to. He can blame the messenger. You can blame the messenger, Lee. None of that will change the stark, unchanging fact--Holiness is PERFECTLY INTOLERANT. It might seem like this is just "semantics", and of course it is. All that semantics is, after all, is the ability of God and humans to coherently interact with each other...so let's not sweat the large stuff. [8-)]
Lee said:David Paul said:Jonathan Pitts said:There is no place for me in a world without tolerance.
You may have spoken your inevitable extinction.
The correct response to my statement above was to step off the train track. Jonathan eventually seemed to do that, when he acknowledged that maybe he wasn't using the right terminology. He will be blessed in that one little act because he is now that much closer to understanding YHWH and that much further from a mindset that can only produce bewilderment and frustration. Yeah, it was "just a word"...but since we worship a God we call "the Word", we of all people ought to realize that choosing the right Word matters.
You consider what I said a dig, an act of spite. Believe what you want. I consider what I said a wake-up call and an inoculation. I was trying to help. Yeah, what I said was stark...maybe harsh. I guarantee it isn't nearly as harsh as finding out too late that YHWH has never been in a tolerating frame of mind.
Lee said:In other forums, trash posts like these would have quickly earned suspensions or outright bans.
I realize you feel you're fighting a noble battle, Lee. Unfortunately, you aren't doing a very good job of it. Your sanitization campaign has turned into the biggest brouhaha I've seen on the forums in months. You are fanning flames, not dousing them. I don't blame you alone...I really don't feel inclined to blame anyone. My attitude, as I mentioned before, is just deal with it. You've now said your piece (I realize that it's supposed to be "peace", but that just doesn't seem appropriate). Now, why not let it drop? I don't know if you are the kind who has to get the last word or not. I'm content to let you have it, but you've poked about a dozen or so different forum members so far, so the most efficient way to end this is to just walk away. The old saying is that it takes a bigger man to just walk away. Why not be that bigger man? If you want to take a parting shot at me on your way out, have at it. Then let this end, please.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
I find your arrogrance sick to the core. If you still have a conscience, at least pray for the guy, and please don't speak as if you totally knew God's counsel and God's Word, and had delivered it the way He wanted you to. You could be wrong.
0 -
Lee said:
I find your arrogrance sick to the core. If you still have a conscience, at least pray for the guy, and please don't speak as if you totally knew God's counsel and God's Word, and had delivered it the way He wanted you to. You could be wrong.
So you DO know God's counsel and God's Word better than anyone else on the forum. Now, who is arrogant? You are also implying that your interlocutor has no conscience. Do you have one? I don't think so.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Lee said:
If you still have a conscience, at least pray for the guy, and please don't speak as if you totally knew God's counsel and God's Word, and had delivered it the way He wanted you to.
Found some good counsel here. The author should be respected. I think he makes good points we all should try to follow.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
You are quite right about that. Thanks for the resource. I've done enough counselling to know that prayer can help, and words can fail. Encouragement is what we can practically offer from this distance. But we don't need any excuse to offer encouragement. Anyday's fine!
George Somsel said:Lee said:I find your arrogrance sick to the core. If you still have a conscience, at least pray for the guy, and please don't speak as if you totally knew God's counsel and God's Word, and had delivered it the way He wanted you to. You could be wrong.
So you DO know God's counsel and God's Word better than anyone else on the forum. Now, who is arrogant? You are also implying that your interlocutor has no conscience. Do you have one? I don't think so.
You don't know when you have exceeded all limits, do you, George?
0 -
Can we drop the matter now. This thread has gotten out of hand, and is way off from the original posters question.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Lee said:
I've done enough counselling to know that prayer can help, and words can fail.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread is half as important as our brother Jonathan's plight. How about we all agree to stop with the words and join together in praying for Jonathan.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I am right there with you. I prayed for about half an hour a few hours ago. Others can pray too.
0 -
Take a break from the debate and watch this video: Agnostic + Love = Believes
Minister Jesus to people.
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
And it is a living example of what the original poster was talking about with the tone of the forumsLynden Williams said:Can we drop the matter now. This thread has gotten out of hand, and is way off from the original posters question.
0 -
tom said:
And it is a living example of what the original poster was talking about with the tone of the forumsLynden Williams said:Can we drop the matter now. This thread has gotten out of hand, and is way off from the original posters question.
Which is why this forum aims to be limited to discussing resources, not theology.
Like it or not when you are invoking the example of our Lord in discussing how people should behave (or indeed just plain discussing how people should behave) you are talking theology.
0 -
Is anyone in contact with Jonathan or have a contact with Logos where they can use their records to find a means to check up on Jonathan?
0 -
Randy W. Sims said:
Is anyone in contact with Jonathan or have a contact with Logos where they can use their records to find a means to check up on Jonathan?
I'll be fine, just needed to get out of this discussion.
I had an unsuccessful change of medication this week, which has made me a bit more vulnerable than usual. I'm better today than yesterday.
Thank you for your concern.
0 -
Jonathan Pitts said:Randy W. Sims said:
Is anyone in contact with Jonathan or have a contact with Logos where they can use their records to find a means to check up on Jonathan?
I'll be fine, just needed to get out of this discussion.
I had an unsuccessful change of medication this week, which has made me a bit more vulnerable than usual. I'm better today than yesterday.
Thank you for your concern.
Thanks for checking in! [:D]
This has been an ... interesting ... thread. [:S]
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
Thanks for replying back, Jonathan. Hang in there with us. Sometimes we miss the mark. This thread is a great example; people so into making their arguments that they miss the people. There are plenty of asses here like everywhere. The church is full of them. But there are plenty of good people too, people that care.
This IS a place you can turn to for support.
0
