dialogue about dialogue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, like wil I find the whole matter inconsequential in the wide lens. It's a scuffle for status and I have no standing being merely an interested bystander. I have no petard to hoist.:) It's all good fun!
 
wil said:
These are exactly the people that if kicked out here...with us tolerant, interfaith acceptable folks, where will they go and what will they do.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of millions of websites on the internet with a significant number given over to issues of religion in one form or other. I seriously don't think CR has a monopoly on religious discussions, and the internet is such that anyone can set up their own place in cyberspace to define discussions on their own terms.

That was actually a reason why CR was set up in the first place - most religious discussion groups I'd been involved with before were founded on a principle bias of faith, that set up boundaries I felt were restrictive and unnecessary. Since then I've noticed other active discussion groups that seem to be running a similar remit to CR.

As for giving love - there's an attempt to be as tolerant as possible, but there's also the need to preserve the overall dynamic that works for the many, not the few.

I've had some interesting prior experiences in other groups dealing with people with very real mental problems. It's definitely a case of good intentions can be counter-productive, and no substitute for support from those who are trained to look after them.

Postmaster said:
Why was Niranjan banned by the way? Thought he had some good point of views he was just a bit rough round the edges.
Click to expand...

I tried to give him room for as long as possible, but he was in a pattern of throwing in personal attacks from the beginning that he wouldn't break out from, creating a string of fights across different threads.

Sunny C. said:
I still don't understand why Christianity has been separated into camps.
Click to expand...

lunamoth said:
I totally agree Sunny. I've said this more than once...not sure why Brian has it where it is but I would also like to see it moved back to Christianity.
Click to expand...

The Liberal Christianity board is something I'm not happy with either - we had someone join up who begged to have a safe haven for Liberal Christians, and so I eventually set it up, only to then see it used as nothing more than a platform to direct attackly Christians on the Christianity board.

The dust has settled since then, but to be honest I think the only reason I haven't dismantled it is because wil has made a strong point of it helping him settle on the site.

Maybe moving it to a subforum of Christianity is a good idea. Any thoughts, wil?
 
I said:
The Liberal Christianity board is something I'm not happy with either - we had someone join up who begged to have a safe haven for Liberal Christians, and so I eventually set it up, only to then see it used as nothing more than a platform to direct attackly Christians on the Christianity board.

The dust has settled since then, but to be honest I think the only reason I haven't dismantled it is because wil has made a strong point of it helping him settle on the site.

Maybe moving it to a subforum of Christianity is a good idea. Any thoughts, wil?
Click to expand...
Actually, I kinda like the Liberal Christianity board where it is. It reminds me of the "other sheep." {Who are not of the formalized Abrahamic fold?} Eventually, both folds might truly become 'one flock,' but this process really shouldn't be artificially rushed, imo. {Re: John chapter 10}
 
Well, if people do not like the LC board, fine. If you want to have a hey day in the Christianity board, go ahead. Personally, I don't think that the LC board was meant to de-legitimize LCers. If you want, just set us orthodoxers up with an "Orthodox" board (preferable under Christianity) and that should hopefully solve the problem.
 
Who's orthodox? Thomas for sure, but who else? I can hear it now, "hey bud, this is the Orthodox board, non of that sola scriptura here. Now, run along and play with your little Liberal friends." I just think things should be labeled accurately. Orthodox is not the same as Conservative, Liberal is not a lost and found bin for non-traditionalists. Thomas is, from what I've seen so far, the sole representative of Orthodoxy. Quahom perhaps as well, I don't know. LunaMoth is the sole representative of Liberal Christianity from what I've seen. The rest of you all are a Heinz 57 of mostly conservative denominations. Then there's wil, who I understand is Unity, and Andrew and Nick who are Theosophists, and Tao, myself, and others who range from borderline atheists to syncretists of various stripes. We probably belong on B&S or down under on Philosophy.
 
I have only two minor complaints about this site. I'd like a maximizable Post Reply window, and I wish there was a folder tree at the bottom as well as top of the page. That's it.
 
Kindest Regards, Sunny!
Sunny C. said:
Who's orthodox? I just think things should be labeled accurately. Orthodox is not the same as Conservative, Liberal is not a lost and found bin for non-traditionalists.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...seems around here the liberals think I'm too conservative and the conservatives think I'm too liberal. I'm too Jewish to be Christian and too Christian to be Jewish. Ah! the limitations of accurately labelling...
 
Sunny C. said:
LunaMoth is the sole representative of Liberal Christianity from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

You mean, I still haven't managed to earn my "L" yet? :D

InPeace,
InLove
 
Juantoo....

Be happy that you defy any attempt at a label.... there is no greater honour!!:):):)
 
The problems with Silas, Niranjan, and this paxcalibur guy were not within Silas, Niranjan, or the Paganprophet. The words to chastise, vilify, decivilize, and institutionalize or hospitalize them in the name of justifying oneself is really nauseating to me.

Was the paxcalibur guy truly banned? Why is the Okie telling it like it is with a private forum but that paxcalibur's visions are not allowed here? I'm lost on that one... show of hands, who here was offended by Paganprophet?

Niranjan: Having read of Niranjan's last threads, the guy was the only one to wish anyone a Happy Mother's Day on CR, and it was to Muslimwoman. That was after several long threads where he ranted against Islam with her. Ignore the content... how is it that MuslimWoman earns his respect and succeeds in helping break through a barrier? Yet when he speaks against the UK and Imperialism, which a large number of people on this planet do, he gets stoked, banned, and then vilified with no chance to respond?

Before being told by a member here to, "shut up", to take his ego and ignorance elsewhere, and that he was a prejudiced monster, and then worse, Niranjan expressed a couple of things that revealed a different person than what you have all judged him as. In response to Tao's disclosure that he was a victim of sexual assault as a child, Niranjan reveals the same here, with forgiveness. He says:
Niranjan said:
That is my point Tao. Get rid of the plant by the roots, instead of trimming them .

Similarly , instead of merely arresting these paedophiles , and filling the prisons with them, go to the root of the problem as I suggested , and make sure that none of them are created in the first place.
Click to expand...
Dealing with the tree by the roots is in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from different angles... it is a deep concept. While Niranjan railed against religion, he revealed to me that he understands the underlying concept from somewhere whether he knows it or not. Here he indicates: hate the sin, not the sinner. Do you not realize that Niranjan has what many people here lack? Yet you banned him and vilify him claiming that he was 'unproductive' or 'uncivil'. Shame on this website for banning him. Shame on its members.

I was surprised that juantoo3 was impressing upon Niranjan, because here it was considered tinkling brass, sounding cymbols, and wasted energy when I rebuked Quahom1 for a prejudiced generalization where he states that we all know that speaking of Jesus (pbuh) on Arab land that people listen then have you arrested, and/or killed... in comparison to the USA and Israel. My rebuke followed. That is all that is required... you don't have to ban anyone. Quahom1 probably did not realize his own biases and is going to think twice before EVER making a statement like that again. Did he get angry and close the thread? Yeah, but I bet I would be gone if I called him a prejudiced monster.

I recognize that I am the minority here with my viewpoint. I think I can safely claim to be the most outspokenly against banning the individuals who have been condemned. I understand that people want to enforce some kind of standard on their neighbor, but right now I just see a website owner wanting to retain full control of content by his judgment of a generalized word 'civility', opposition to whatever is deemed as soliciting a viewpoint, banning them without mercy, and without the public scrutiny of the judgment. I surely have been raising Brian's hairs. What I am speaking out against is something that is far beyond anyone here and this website. It is the status quo not just across internet forums but in countries edging ever closer to a police state with a polarized government and public. If I were on a different forum the results would probably be the same... some more than others. Old world terms like 'civility' are being applied to a recent invention known as the internet, and I personally consider it a sham. I consider it important to be able to say words that may knowingly raise the hairs on someone's back.

I encourage people to set a standard. In my viewpoint, for example, Muslimwoman has set a standard here at CR in her dialogue with Niranjan. It did not require rules or banning anyone. But it did require hearing, patience, forgiveness, honesty, and not condemning (banning) the person. She knew he had hatred of Islam. I feel bad encouraging her in PM to let up.

I was thinking of methods of dialogue that I have used with my children. I often ask, "Do you like it when XYZ does ABC to you?" No. "Then why are you doing ABC to XYZ?" I have used that so many times that I instinctively see where people break it. From there the discussion might be whether ABC given is the same as ABC received... and I could be wrong. If I used that with people here though, I bet that I would find many breaking the golden rule. What is claimed to be uncivil in others is often within your own language.

That prophet of a religion I follow is also noted as stating that Law is a matter of Faith, Mercy, and Judgment. But like many forums, here I find that Faith is not placed into any community to help define what standards like this word 'civility' mean that is placed into a CoC, I see very little Mercy for someone being condemned for allegedly being uncivil with no rebuke or chance to ask forgiveness, and rebuking is not only condemned but there is a desire to ban in secret so that people like me can't judge and can not lay down words either for or against it. 0_for_3 in my book, which I see all over the world. This is very common, but it is rule by the chip on the shoulder... cross me and I'll ban you. That is what the CoC is. Personally, if someone comes at me in person railing against me, my religion, or my country... shame on me if I ban them from my presence. Shame on me for not having the patience, honesty, and forgiveness. Shame on me for placing value on words over people.

But, this is not my website and I am done with the subject, so I will kindly step off the soap box and would prefer to not mention it again. I had an agenda to try to show something between judging with words versus condemning, and I'm done with it.
 
In an attempt to try to counter the negative for those who might react to what I see and rebuke, l should also say that this is in my opinion a well intentioned website with many well intentioned people and that equally reflects on the owner and the people who contribute. I simply do not see that good dialogue is a result of rules of dialogue and for banning the 3 individuals that I have witnessed in the time that I was here. That to me has been a real loss. I suggest that a dialogue about dialogue would have been appropriate with those who were deemed to be deficient, but my hats off to the many of those here who do dialogue and share interesting viewpoints with people of different or opposing viewpoints.
 
Cyberpi,

I can see that you neither seek nor require any ally to support your views but you do find one here in me. Personally i find the banning I have seen to be unwarranted and ill judged for just the same reasons as you stated. That said I also respect the genuine effort of even-handedness of both the thread host and moderators. I can see both your argument and theirs to be equally valid. For my part, if this was up to me, I would give merit not so much to what someone posted but to their intent and their willingness to engage in fluid debate. I notice that some C&P'rs seem to be tolerated even though they rarely respond to questions that are posed to them in response. This to me is much more worthy of banning than ill considered yet passionate genuine debate.
I am, when all is said and done, glad that it is not me that makes these decisions. And I respect what i believe to be the genuine effort of even handedness I see here.


TE
 
Kindest Regards, Cyberpi.
cyberpi said:
I was surprised that juantoo3 was impressing upon Niranjan, because here it was considered tinkling brass, sounding cymbols, and wasted energy when I rebuked Quahom1 for a prejudiced generalization...
Click to expand...
While I can appreciate what you have been trying to put forth in this matter (disregarding for the moment that you still seem to fail to understand the practical necessities presented to you by a litany of others besides myself), I do feel that taking what I said out of context (again) to make or further your point is unworthy of your abilities. I said what I said at that time in that context to mean there was an argument (very off topic) that I had no desire to enter. My answer was specifically to the OP, and it was addressed to Prober, not you, not having anything to do with whatever you were arguing with any others. To imply something else is incorrect. There was no motive behind what I said, and it is only by chance that my post fell behind yours.

But In Time Everything will Measure Equivocally, and Praise Unto The Zadokkim!
cyberpi said:
In an attempt to try to counter the negative for those who might react to what I see and rebuke, l should also say that this is in my opinion a well intentioned website with many well intentioned people and that equally reflects on the owner and the people who contribute. I simply do not see that good dialogue is a result of rules of dialogue and for banning the 3 individuals that I have witnessed in the time that I was here. That to me has been a real loss. I suggest that a dialogue about dialogue would have been appropriate with those who were deemed to be deficient, but my hats off to the many of those here who do dialogue and share interesting viewpoints with people of different or opposing viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you include me in this, thank you for your support.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top