gosh, this thread's been popular while i've been away this weekend!
ardenz said:
What this brings up, as Wil, in the above post mentions, is what going on in this persons mind? can we help? writing off someone as on the lunatic fringe discounts what they may actually be going through.
we are not mental health professionals. i cannot take responsibility from someone who wishes to use CR instead of going to see his doctor or therapist. we're just not here for that. fortunately, it is not a very common problem.
Obviously a site like this is going to continue to attract people who may have a mission, personal or otherwise.
well, that's as may be, but CR is not here to support such people. CR has its own mission, which is to support dialogue - not personal crusades, jihads or anything else, with all that that implies.
I certainly believe that doing "witnessing" (a christian practice, I believe) with someone who has serious problems is a "crazy idea" - I would sooner suggest someone visit to a medical doctor, or psychiatrist.
i agree - and we have done this on a regular basis, to shadowman, for example. he doesn't seem to have taken the hint as yet, unfortunately.
Tao_Equus said:
Why not just a simple 7day blanket ban from posting? Then someone has the opportunity to reflect rather than find ways to continue an argument through moderation.
hmm. i don't think this is too bad an idea. what do you think, brian?
Dondi said:
You might ask, would it be proper to have this kind of separation in say the Judaism boards, since there are distinct flavors of Judaism? I dunno, but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem there since there are currently two jewish members on board. For the Islam board, I have no answer, for I am less familiar with distinctions in that faith. But how these boards run are not really my concern, since I'm not a part of them.
there are actually more jewish people here than that - but dauer and i are mods, plus we are very visible and vocal. i would answer that both dauer and i, for all our ideological and theological differences, have a certain amount of common ground when it comes to issues of judaism as a group. i think i can speak for both of us when i say that we'd both like judaism to be as inclusive as possible, whilst still maintaining some standards - obviously we disagree on what those standards are, but at least we agree we have them. it's that we really see the benefit in maintaining a civil dialogue relationship despite the fact that we really disagree on a lot of stuff. there is also a principle in judaism known as "klal yisra'el" which is, on some level, about the importance of jewish unity - although this should not be taken to mean that we actually agree on anything! i think it's more about a sort of family feeling in environments like this.
traveler said:
I see religion as an artifact of not closely examining the true nature of our personal beliefs. I know that sounds strange, but often we coast along in autopilot, spouting the party line, knowing what we stand for because we are standing in a certain group. When we take the leap of truthfully examining our real inner terrain, what we in fact believe, what truly motivates our actions, is often quite different.
ok, traveler, but you could drive a rather large coach-and-horses through the holes in this statement, such as your qualifier of "i see", your generalisations about other peoples' inner experience and your glib assumption that what "truly motivates us" can in fact be extracted and analysed. philosophically, that just doesn't stack up.
wil said:
is just that on the regular Christianity board we couldn't discuss whether or not hell or heaven or Jesus or the trinity exists.
in jewish terms, there are certain subjects and ways of approaching them that i believe are not conducive to dialogue. when a neo-nazi, or a holocaust denier, for example, as has happened, shows up and starts spouting his line, i fail to see what is to be achieved by engaging with him. similarly, people who show up and start making statements about what other people are alleged by them to believe, or dispute the honesty of personal statements of faith are, i believe, flying in the face of dialogue. there's just not enough common ground there for a dialogue to start if one person treats it as a diatribe. niranjan was a case in point imho.
lunamoth said:
For goodness sakes, the main Christian forum includes JW, LDS, YECs and SDAs
really? who are the LDS, YECs and SDAs? i've never noticed them!
People may not like or agree with what someone like Spong or Tillich has to say...but what they are talking about is Christian theology.
that's kind of why i think you ought to be able to have everyone in the christian forum - if only to show newbies that our christian forum is not only conservative-friendly. the trouble is for me when as has happened, the forum membership tips too far one way, so a sizable minority end up schisming. i suppose it's the church in miniature -
plus ça change!
Sunny C. said:
I think it's more likely that the Theosophists and neo-Gnostics were the thorn in the side of the conservatives, and since Liberal is such a pervasively pejorative term to them they stereotyped and mislabeled all the heretics in their rush to retain hegemony over the symbolic capitol of Christendom on the Abrahamic board. I'm just guessing.
hmm. it seems to me that theosophists and neo-gnostics seem to make a point of enjoying dancing around in front of conservatives and saying "HERE i am!
i'm a HERETIC!
boogy boogy boogy! listen to *me*! don't i
annoy you? don't i?
don't i? your
beliefs are a bunch of DOGMA - only *we* are clever enough to see
through all that!!!
am i annoying you yet??? here's a....TRACT.... from our
voluminous *writings*!!" and then acting all "ooh, look at me..
i'm a MARTYR now!!!" - and, at any rate, if you have no petard to hoist, then you're in the minority as far as our theosophists and neo-gnostics are concerned.
FaithfulServant said:
This is in the context of us not allowing
the judgement of others to sway us from our carrying our cross.. which ironically is the issue right as we speak.. lol I will take that as a confirmation
Tao_Equus said:
I do not see your ideas as benign and well meaning, far from it. It is grandiose ideas of superiority that drive such beliefs. It is ego.
i suppose the above exchange between TE and FS above really rather illustrates the point, which is that it is extremely difficult to maintain a space in which people who insist on clear definitions, labels and domains can interact with people who see precisely those things as intrusive, tendentious and limiting. as you both know, i agree with both - and neither - of you! however, i don't see why that means we can't be civil to each other, which i suppose is brian's point.
I said:
Civility, I think is an essential requirement of interfaith dialogue. Because of the nature of the subject matter, things are always going to get rocky sometimes, or people will post in the heat of the moment and regret it, and that's always going to be taken into account. There needs to be a general acceptance I think that making one or two mistakes doesn't a bad person make.
However, I absolutely draw the line at people who want to turn CR into their own personal marketing channel. It serves the interests of a minority, and the internet allows these people to set up their own marketing in their own space, under their own rules.
*claps loudly*
If I'm in a pub or restaurant, and someone starts shouting at the clients and won't calm down and generally acts disruptive, I expect that they will be ejected from the premises - else I'll be the one to leave and not return. If the behaviour is tolerated, how many people will care to visit such a place? Who will be motivated most to visit it if aggressive behaviour is openly accepted?
precisely!
b'shalom
bananabrain
.......I do not want to being missionaried to , or whatever way that may be interpreted
