Having been here the shortest amount of time, I know very little of the walled garden version of this site. I do know that when I came aboard, iBrian said that there was a small group of regular, loyal, and knowledgeable members who embodied interfaith dialogue.
Let's just say I understand fully where Thomas is coming from. Likewise I'm truly surprised to see Wil still here. And Phyllis. But almost all of the people I knew, and laughed with, and cried with, and argued with, and grew to love as brothers and sisters here have long ago moved on to other things. I don't go on about it, because I did the same for probably too long, but I've had my reasons.
The walled gardens were envisaged as a tea party. If it was not your particular garden, you were welcome as long as you were respectful. If you could not be respectful, you were escorted out.
The contentious posts were kept outside of the gardens, as a token of respect and to allow for those who wished to participate, while those who wished to keep their sanity within their sanctuary were allowed that as an alternative.
The only gripe I had was that atheists had no garden, so generally with exceptions the atheists often felt obliged to crash parties at their whim, typically the monotheist parties with whom they took particular umbrage. The science/philosophy board is a minor concession in the direction of a garden for the atheists.
When I first came across the forum last year as a visitor, I was intrigued at the debates and discussions that emerged. People articulated their points, disagreed, and continued to engage with one another. We still have that, but there are threads where we drift off topic, and as DA pointed out, I think sometimes our communication breaks down. Part of that is, inevitably, having grown so accustomed to one another. As a result, we don't always articulate our points as clearly as we might otherwise.
When I first came here I was appalled by the universal delight in tormenting evangelical Christians. It was sport. It was a game. "We invite you to stand right here and allow us to pummel you with rotten tomatoes and tell you how bad you are!" I stood up to the bullies, which frankly included Brian. How can one claim to be interfaith anything if you can't make room to love and respect those you disagree with...and in which case why are you here??? To proselytize? To show everyone how you are right and they are wrong? All of that completely misses the point of interfaith!!!!
I believe that we're all here because we understand the importance of interfaith, even if we have different or unclear definitions of what that means. ...I think we have many of the things necessary to make this a haven for people who seek to learn, question, and grow in relation to different belief (or non-belief) structures while interacting with some fascinating people along the way.
Do we?
Really??? I don't think there is nearly enough understanding of the importance of interfaith. What's more, I don't think anybody really gives a flying rat's patootie. That's clearly evident across almost every post I've seen in the past few years, enough so that I stopped bothering.
I don't see improvement even now.
I don't expect everyone to sit around singing Kum-Ba-Yah. But respect is virtually non-existent. It's all a game of one-upmanship. I'm right and you're wrong, with no middle ground.
A certain level of conflict is inevitable on this type of site, and it can have positive effects, but let's remember that we're here to debate, understand, discuss, share, enlighten, question, inform, and enliven interfaith topics. We are not here to hate or to obfuscate. Such motives do the world no good. I think we can all agree that, whether or not the present day is an improvement over the past, there are still enough serious issues facing the world that open and civil avenues of communication are vital to our future.
That depends how you define "conflict." I agree, "there are still enough serious issues facing the world that open and civil avenues of communication are vital to our future," but I look around and see people blowing each other up and chopping off each other's heads and committing heinous acts towards their brothers and sisters in the name of their brand of G-d...and yet people here are still the same sniping, snarky, self-righteous hypocrites they have been for the past few years with no change to speak of.
Leopards can't change their spots. People will continue to destroy people because it is all they know to do, and they have no interest in learning any different. They REFUSE to learn any different.
but I content that all organized religions contain a certain percentage of bogus (some higher than others)...i.e. they cannot be 100-percent perfect, right? i.e. Scientology is IMHO higher in its "bogus" level than Hinduism or Buddhism. Just my humble opinion. They(religions) all have some...
