First, an apology to GFR7. Then, about growing a TOL-grade thick skin.

[PureX]

we are what we do
and
there is certain behavior that cannot be fixed or tolerated

pedophilia comes to mind

one strike and you are out
all we can do
is put them away

For those who are obsessed with blame and condemnation, people are what they do.

For those who are trying to rise above that, however, there is more to a human being than their thoughts and actions.

I will agree with you, though, that we are defining ourselves by the thoughts and behaviors that we continue to practice. Which is why the Bible says that the; "wages of sin, is death". Every time we choose our own fear, egotism, and selfishness over God's love and forgiveness and generosity and kindness (the spirit of Christ that dwells within us), we die a little more, spiritually. Until, over time, we become 'dead men walking'. Incapable of love. Incapable of forgiveness. Incapable of generosity and kindness. And resentful of the peace and joy of others, because we can no longer experience it, ourselves.

 

[chrysostom]

I will agree with you, though, that we are defining ourselves by the thoughts and behaviors that we continue to practice.

I didn't say thoughts

I don't care what you think

only what you do

 

[Granite]

And there's no rule there. Just an anecdotal sample built to distort perception by drawing in a disproportionate group of drum bangers, mostly. It's just a section of the symphony.


I imagine when you strip away our self editing we'd all be hard to love at one time or another...maybe most of the time. Thank God for self editing and grace, no?

You realize the kinds of people and behavior you're defending, right?

 

[Town Heretic]

You realize the kinds of people and behavior you're defending, right?

You're not reading me right. I'm noting how out of step zealots of every stripe are with the rule and arguing that the worst thing you can do is confuse louder voices with larger truth.

Beyond that I'm speaking to a need in the most meaningful sense, that we all require grace. Not that we all have the same demons to wrestle with or to the same degree.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say thoughts

I don't care what you think

only what you do

The thinking usually justifies the doing.

 

[Granite]

You're not reading me right. I'm noting how out of step zealots of every stripe are with the rule and arguing that the worst thing you can do is confuse louder voices with larger truth.

Beyond that I'm speaking to a need in the most meaningful sense, that we all require grace. Not that we all have the same demons to wrestle with or to the same degree.

So you weren't defending the TOL armchair sociopaths, I take it.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you weren't defending the TOL armchair sociopaths, I take it.

I've never been a fan of the angry zealot and I've mostly been on the contesting side with that sort, a sort not limited to one particular ideological or religious line here, to be clear.

I see the school yard name callers, the humorless and anger filled as the smallest part of the place, even if a few of them make a cottage industry of posting and can look like a majority of one often enough. Then you have a handful of fairly obvious nut cases who yell at everyone or use scripture or bumper sticker philosophy like wall paper without any substantive examination, that sort of thing. Then you have people with really strong perspectives and varying degrees of the personal come into play when they mix, but who otherwise can be vociferous but reasonably serious advocates of their banners. Then you have people who aren't terribly engaged emotionally but like the back and forth and engage and move on without regard for the hostile crowd. Lastly you have an equally small group as the zealots who are both emotionally engaged, but can (if not without exception) keep that within the lines of reasoned difference and tend to meet anger with argument.

Almost anyone who has been here long enough has lost their temper and written something stupid about someone else, provoked or not. The distinguishing mark is more readily found in the common methodology of approach and response. On that level I think TOL comes out, on the whole, surprisingly well for a site with declared bias taking on topics that relate to the most sensitive aspects of who we are as individuals.

 

[GFR7]

GFR, I hope you'll accept my sincere apology for the comment I made about you on the Toxicity thread. It was indeed toxic and unnecessary, and I'm sorry.

Later in the same thread you apologized to me, and I want to thank you for that. I appreciate it very much.




I've been thinking a lot about that thread, (posted by someone new to TOL who's already been called retarded), and how it unfolded, about my part in it, and about other threads and posts here, and the people who post them.

So many times I've seen people say you have to have a thick skin to post here, that if you're too thin-skinned, then TOL isn't the place for you. It almost seems like a point of pride, that if you've grown that thick skin, you've somehow made it. Gotten the TOL badge. Having received my share of insults here, I've managed to grow that thicker skin. And I don't like it much, because it means having a certain callousness I didn't have before. And it means I learned to sometimes give as good as I got and I'm not proud of those times, and in them, I played my own part in what I'm talking about.

I never did like the idea of "truth-smacking." Sure, discussions could and should get vehement, there's nothing wrong with that. There are some big areas of contention. But why do Christians think it's okay to say the things that are said here under the pretense of furthering a more righteous, Godly way? There's nothing righteous or Christian or Godly in calling people faggots or retards or Christ-hating pigs or whores.

If you're sure that what you believe is correct and true, you should be able to defend it against all comers, and do it in a way that draws people to Christianity, rather than repels them. TOL has completely changed my view of Christianity. Yes, I've been told that TOL isn't a reflection of the whole of Christianity, but as time goes on, I have to say I'm less and less in agreement with that. There are some really good, very decent people here, and I'm trying not to overgeneralize, but it seems rather overly-optimistic to think that what goes on in this Christian forum couldn't be extrapolated out to encompass the whole of Christianity. I've come to realize it can be, and that bothers me a lot.

I am just now seeing this, and I apologize for addressing it so late.

You have nothing to apologize for.

Thank you for your well-written statement, with which I agree;
and for your kind sentiments. Most appreciated.

And I do think we can disagree here without repelling eachother.

Very best wishes;
Gianfranco

 

[bybee]

I've never been a fan of the angry zealot and I've mostly been on the contesting side with that sort, a sort not limited to one particular ideological or religious line here, to be clear.

I see the school yard name callers, the humorless and anger filled as the smallest part of the place, even if a few of them make a cottage industry of posting and can look like a majority of one often enough. Then you have a handful of fairly obvious nut cases who yell at everyone or use scripture or bumper sticker philosophy like wall paper without any substantive examination, that sort of thing. Then you have people with really strong perspectives and varying degrees of the personal come into play when they mix, but who otherwise can be vociferous but reasonably serious advocates of their banners. Then you have people who aren't terribly engaged emotionally but like the back and forth and engage and move on without regard for the hostile crowd. Lastly you have an equally small group as the zealots who are both emotionally engaged, but can (if not without exception) keep that within the lines of reasoned difference and tend to meet anger with argument.

Almost anyone who has been here long enough has lost their temper and written something stupid about someone else, provoked or not. The distinguishing mark is more readily found in the common methodology of approach and response. On that level I think TOL comes out, on the whole, surprisingly well for a site with declared bias taking on topics that relate to the most sensitive aspects of who we are as individuals.

Agreed!

 

[GFR7]

I want you to know that I've always appreciated you and anna for your honesty when it comes to defending perversion. Hopefully GFR7 (if he returns) will be honest in his defense of perversion as well Sandy.

aCW, does it never end? :nono: I speak as I truly feel and believe - unlike what you are asserting, I speak honestly and without a hidden agenda. Rusha and Anna can be respected by me for their honesty, even if they are in disagreement with me.

 

[annabenedetti]

I am just now seeing this, and I apologize for addressing it so late.

You have nothing to apologize for.

Thank you for your well-written statement, with which I agree;
and for your kind sentiments. Most appreciated.

And I do think we can disagree here without repelling eachother.

Very best wishes;
Gianfranco

Thank you, I appreciate it very much, but it's something I had to say.

Without a doubt we'll be crossing paths again, it's unavoidable. You're going to post and I'm going to disagree. But I'll do my best to be civil when I do.

 

[PureX]

So you weren't defending the TOL armchair sociopaths, I take it.

:chuckle:

 

[Christian Liberty]

I knew it was only a matter of time before the forces of evil set their petty differences aside and came together to fight us homophobic bigoted Christians.

Hopefully GFR7 will come back and quit pretending to be a conservative and show his true rainbow colors like you do anna.

Sorry, but the world isn't as simple as "wants to criminalize homosexuality outright" and "rainbow flag waving liberal."

I can respect a pro-criminalization position with arguments. I cannot respect yours because you don't understand the complexities of positions.

 

[Rusha]

Sorry, but the world isn't as simple as "wants to criminalize homosexuality outright" and "rainbow flag waving liberal."

I can respect a pro-criminalization position with arguments.

What possible argument could you use that would not be solely based on religion?

 

[annabenedetti]

I've never been a fan of the angry zealot and I've mostly been on the contesting side with that sort, a sort not limited to one particular ideological or religious line here, to be clear.

I see the school yard name callers, the humorless and anger filled as the smallest part of the place, even if a few of them make a cottage industry of posting and can look like a majority of one often enough. Then you have a handful of fairly obvious nut cases who yell at everyone or use scripture or bumper sticker philosophy like wall paper without any substantive examination, that sort of thing. Then you have people with really strong perspectives and varying degrees of the personal come into play when they mix, but who otherwise can be vociferous but reasonably serious advocates of their banners. Then you have people who aren't terribly engaged emotionally but like the back and forth and engage and move on without regard for the hostile crowd. Lastly you have an equally small group as the zealots who are both emotionally engaged, but can (if not without exception) keep that within the lines of reasoned difference and tend to meet anger with argument.

Almost anyone who has been here long enough has lost their temper and written something stupid about someone else, provoked or not. The distinguishing mark is more readily found in the common methodology of approach and response. On that level I think TOL comes out, on the whole, surprisingly well for a site with declared bias taking on topics that relate to the most sensitive aspects of who we are as individuals.

I understand what you're saying TH, but I just looked and there are 38 members online. It only takes a few people out of those categories you listed to poison what's a pretty small pond.

 

[GFR7]

Thank you, I appreciate it very much, but it's something I had to say.

Without a doubt we'll be crossing paths again, it's unavoidable. You're going to post and I'm going to disagree. But I'll do my best to be civil when I do.

That sounds fair to me!
I will do the same. x

 

[bybee]

That sounds fair to me!
I will do the same. x

Lovely!
I find both of you to be very civil.
I'm glad that you're here!

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand what you're saying TH, but I just looked and there are 38 members online. It only takes a few people out of those categories you listed to poison what's a pretty small pond.

We've had conversations about this... God knows I've had my share of dedicated trolls, but here I am. Doing fine. They haven't stopped me from enjoying the larger, good company here. They aren't indicative of much that matters. And when they get crazy enough and angry enough for long enough they go on vacations.

The more I think about it the less I think about them and the less they impact me. As for their impact on the unsettled and searching, it's profoundly disappointing, but the way to combat that is by demonstrating a different face and methodology and by letting them know that this isn't a microcosm of the faithful, that the best place to find that face is to seek out a welcoming church in their own and actual back yards.

This isn't so much a place to find your life context as one to test and sharpen it.

 

[chrysostom]

This isn't so much a place to find your life context as one to test and sharpen it.

I like that
but
I have to admit
tol is a big part of my life

 

[Stripe]

GFR, I hope you'll accept my sincere apology for the comment I made about you on the Toxicity thread. It was indeed toxic and unnecessary, and I'm sorry.Later in the same thread you apologized to me, and I want to thank you for that. I appreciate it very much.I've been thinking a lot about that thread, (posted by someone new to TOL who's already been called retarded), and how it unfolded, about my part in it, and about other threads and posts here, and the people who post them.So many times I've seen people say you have to have a thick skin to post here, that if you're too thin-skinned, then TOL isn't the place for you. It almost seems like a point of pride, that if you've grown that thick skin, you've somehow made it. Gotten the TOL badge. Having received my share of insults here, I've managed to grow that thicker skin. And I don't like it much, because it means having a certain callousness I didn't have before. And it means I learned to sometimes give as good as I got and I'm not proud of those times, and in them, I played my own part in what I'm talking about.I never did like the idea of "truth-smacking." Sure, discussions could and should get vehement, there's nothing wrong with that. There are some big areas of contention. But why do Christians think it's okay to say the things that are said here under the pretense of furthering a more righteous, Godly way? There's nothing righteous or Christian or Godly in calling people faggots or retards or Christ-hating pigs or whores. If you're sure that what you believe is correct and true, you should be able to defend it against all comers, and do it in a way that draws people to Christianity, rather than repels them. TOL has completely changed my view of Christianity. Yes, I've been told that TOL isn't a reflection of the whole of Christianity, but as time goes on, I have to say I'm less and less in agreement with that. There are some really good, very decent people here, and I'm trying not to overgeneralize, but it seems rather overly-optimistic to think that what goes on in this Christian forum couldn't be extrapolated out to encompass the whole of Christianity. I've come to realize it can be, and that bothers me a lot.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Quit whining.

If you don't like being called names, use the ignore feature.

That you do not shows that you are more interested in whining than you are worried about the impression that is being given.