Not much to say...
- Thread starter Zenn
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
Some bedtime reading for you.
:rotfl:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
glorydaz
Well-known member
Zenn
New member
I'm glad your opinion provides no context about my supposed ignorance. (A bit ironic there you know.)
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Zenn
New member
Yes, I rather think he is. But glorydaz seems to have been promoting some kind of situational relativism with everything in the eye of the beholder, with her(?) eye being the most favored by God and all creation - to judge.
I had made a simple, general comment that Christians who are nasty in the name of the Lord bother me, and that seemed to have set her(?) off. (God knows why.) So I'll make another general comment that Protestants seem to have forgotten how to apply the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ in both discourse with one another and in practice of dispute resolution.
The bickering, the backstabbing, the ease with which one takes offense as shown in various posts even here in this thread must be quite saddening to Jesus, as it should to all good people.
Do you think Jesus would try to drive away people? And hate the stranger?
Zenn
Right Divider
Body part
We are allowed to express our opinions here on TOL.
Matthew 10 is not some general principle being expressed. It has a CONTEXT.
- Jesus is speaking to His 12 apostles that will judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 10:1-4, Matt 19:28).
- Jesus told THEM not to go to Gentiles or any city of the Samaritans (Matt 10:5).
- THEY were told to do many things including raise the dead (Matt 10:8).
- THEY will be scourged in synagogues (Matt 10:17).
- THEY will not have gone over the cities of Israel before the LORD's return (Matt 10:23).
Some people invest a great deal in an aggressive response to what they genuinely believe is discernment and a lot less in a gentle word. It's a point of contention around here and always has been.
Is that friendly? Full of grace and mercy? Now if you were or are a Protestant and place yourself under the criticism it's one thing. If you aren't and don't it's another.
Do you think Jesus was saddened by how you chose to interpret AMR's attempt to understand you better?
Do you find a blanket condemnation of Protestants that by inference (without association) might appear a bit proud and judgmental an act of love and a thing to draw others toward?
Zenn
New member
TH,
I quite appreciate the time you've taken to post, and also your heart for reconciliation. But when one reads through what was meant to be a simple introduction thread, it's obvious that as the new kid sitting alone at the lunch table, a group of the self-deemed "in-crowd kids" decided to bully the new guy and then took umbrage when I refused to have any of it.
I got the impression that they were like dogs sniffing around each other (and just how is that any more vulgar than dogs returning to their vomit?)
I've suffered the slings and arrows of significant cyber bullying in this thread, and the fact that this either is not recognized, or has become a normal and accepted practice on a forum that intends to further the cause of Christ is rather astonishing, wouldn’t you think?
So let me know if this is just a site for the chosen few to pat themselves on the back (and what else is this "Reputation" feature for if not that ... reminds me of an episode of Black Mirror) or if the intent of this forum is to truly allow for civil discussion without the need to demand members take some oath of doctrinal fealty. I mean, since it would seem you’ve been around awhile, how would they actually treat a Buddhist?
I’m tempted to quote the parable of the Green Monkey, but I’ll just leave it for now.
Schöne Grüße,
Zenn
I quite appreciate the time you've taken to post, and also your heart for reconciliation. But when one reads through what was meant to be a simple introduction thread, it's obvious that as the new kid sitting alone at the lunch table, a group of the self-deemed "in-crowd kids" decided to bully the new guy and then took umbrage when I refused to have any of it.
I got the impression that they were like dogs sniffing around each other (and just how is that any more vulgar than dogs returning to their vomit?)
Well I certainly was never accused by anyone of being Orthodox. And the impression I've now gathered is that certain active denizens of this website try to ferret out those whom they deem unorthodox and make every attempt to drive them away or ban them. (Trust me, this feels a lot like what the neo-nazis do.) So while not a "death sentence" as you say, do you realize there is an active practice here to shame people into conformity or drive them away in hate if they don't? What else are those little red boxes about, and the acquiescence to permit comments commanding me to "Leave"? What kind of sick mind gathers that much hate in such short a time to summon the hubris of the outstretched arm with pointed finger and command one to, "LEAVE"? These "reputation comments" are anonymous, so was this command from an admin or a bottom-feeder? I can't tell, I see no name attached. All this tells me is that there are some wretched souls here, possibly even possessed.
I've suffered the slings and arrows of significant cyber bullying in this thread, and the fact that this either is not recognized, or has become a normal and accepted practice on a forum that intends to further the cause of Christ is rather astonishing, wouldn’t you think?
So let me know if this is just a site for the chosen few to pat themselves on the back (and what else is this "Reputation" feature for if not that ... reminds me of an episode of Black Mirror) or if the intent of this forum is to truly allow for civil discussion without the need to demand members take some oath of doctrinal fealty. I mean, since it would seem you’ve been around awhile, how would they actually treat a Buddhist?
I’m tempted to quote the parable of the Green Monkey, but I’ll just leave it for now.
Well it most certainly didn't seem to come across that way. It was plain and outright badgering, ending in an expression of exasperation when I refused to submit to taking a "faith test" so he could pigeonhole me. How is that helpful? Along with the astonishing gossip and accusations that I was some other banned poster reincarnated from the unwashed unwelcomed?
Then he should be rather appreciative of my comments on definitional frameworks. I visited (more like audited) a Hagan Word of Faith church for about three months until I realized they had a far different meaning for the word faith than that which would be found in any Protestant or Catholic church. Any “simple” test AMR proposes can’t help but be fraught with presuppositions (cf. Dr. Francis Schaeffer) that would merely serve to cloud understanding rather than clarify it. I don’t need MY position clarified in orthodoxy. I am rather well acquainted with what I believe. That said, I once found a major mistake in one of the most widely used IQ tests that had been vetted by numerous Psychiatrists. I don’t take tests (whether political or theological) and not just because pigeonholing a person into a prefabricated system of stereotypes is just plain wrong. I avoid them because they have mistakes and there is no way to clarify what certain terms may or may not mean. In most every college course I have ever taken there would be at least one question that was poorly phrased. Always challenge the “test”. And if there is no way to do so, avoid it. Helpful people should know this, instead of trying to put someone to the test. (And I don't weigh the same as a duck.)
I saw no heartfelt interest, TH. Just derision that I wouldn’t play his games. And while you may have known AMR for a number of years, I don’t, and only have these few posts upon which to base my interaction – A demand I take a test so its stereotyped pigeonholing could be used against me and a hasty, unfounded accusation that I was a fraud. (And that wasn’t confrontational?)
Prost. (If you happen to have a Weihenstephaner Kristall.)
Schöne Grüße,
Zenn
Let me see if I can help out a bit.
Think of it as a reasonable man standard. A reasonable man, told something about himself that isn't accurate, will typically correct the mistake, unless the error isn't meaningful to him or he feels the topic is out of bounds. So if someone reads a bit I write in support of the second amendment and decides/states that I'm a right winger, I'm going to rather quickly point out that I'm not, both because it's important to me to be seen clearly and because the misimpression might lead the other person to color all sorts of remarks I make in a way that isn't helpful. Over the years here most have experienced people who seemed particularly reticent when it came to illustrating their particulars while being particularly critical of others and their approaches/contexts. Those people are almost always trolling on some level. So when you couched you drew that experience into the conversation, innocently or not.
But it's an individual thing. It took a while for me to realize I was giving gravity to comments and some who didn't rate it. Everyone comes to their own comfort level and practice over enough time.
He's a stranger to you. I can understand why you might find yourself seeing a thing not offered, colored by the tone of a few comments that were of a sort and/or past experiences unrelated. I can also understand why people who might have been hopeful but wary might have become more convinced to remove a measure of good will when you acted in a manner consistent with people who've come here to play at something, even if that was coincidental and completely removed from your intent.
In short, we all look through the lens of our experience. You had a bad one elsewhere and maybe that made you wary and less inclined to clarify. Others have seen trolls roll through here over the years eager to point fingers and less willing to paint a clear enough picture to invite a similar scrutiny and criticism.
One note, on AMR, I can say that he's not a stranger to me and I can tell you from years of experience that his aim was clarity. We wrestled with some fairly substantive differences over the years but both remained and deepened a regard and friendship wherever we were in the course of difference. It's not a game to him. Both his joy and his academic background are in the faith (he has his doctorate in theology) and the inquiry that followed was an expression of those. And again, you weren't lacking a willingness to comment on the faith of others, from fairly odd generalizations about Protestants to particular judgments on the motivation of strangers...a thing to consider when you consider all of this.
My "hello" thread had about three people commenting when I first arrived. Two of them were looking for the bathroom.lain:
Spirited difference on issues is a great deal more entertaining and informative than spending a lot of time on the purely personal. De nada.
It's a bit like this...some here are looking for a dust up. Some are merely curious. And more than a few will be amiable and desirous of a new voice and perspective. But we're a much smaller community of active posters than we were several years ago, and most of those still keeping the lights on have been here a while. That can engender a human tendency to see through the lens of forum experience.
Think of it as a reasonable man standard. A reasonable man, told something about himself that isn't accurate, will typically correct the mistake, unless the error isn't meaningful to him or he feels the topic is out of bounds. So if someone reads a bit I write in support of the second amendment and decides/states that I'm a right winger, I'm going to rather quickly point out that I'm not, both because it's important to me to be seen clearly and because the misimpression might lead the other person to color all sorts of remarks I make in a way that isn't helpful. Over the years here most have experienced people who seemed particularly reticent when it came to illustrating their particulars while being particularly critical of others and their approaches/contexts. Those people are almost always trolling on some level. So when you couched you drew that experience into the conversation, innocently or not.
There's a good bit of the unorthodox to be had here.
And yet we have Hall of Fame members from all sorts of walks, including an atheist. There have always been an element spoiling for a fight, but it doesn't take long to get a sense of who you can talk to and who is simply waiting for their turn to monologue or harrangue.
The red boxes are a hold over from a time when reputations were hard to establish without being a part of the main here, at the very least right wing and fairly fundamentalist. But some of us managed anyway, through humor and reason. And those rep whales encouraged and protected the new members. It's much less a concern now, though some habits are hard to break.
Only until you reach the number of posts and time to move up. Then you'll see who is leaving a comment. The mods won't do that and will let you know when you're crossing the line in relation to the rules, which are posted (do you know where?).
I think people are people. I had a stalker here for years whose favorite saying in neg reps was "Seek Christ, Town". Least Christ like poster I'd ever read. For a while, being new to forums, I gave him and the practice more weight than I should have. Now I use the ignore function when called for (a few just won't let go of you if they're ever properly offended by something) and otherwise have fun with the nonsense.
But it's an individual thing. It took a while for me to realize I was giving gravity to comments and some who didn't rate it. Everyone comes to their own comfort level and practice over enough time.
Some will be fine with it. Some will ride you like a rented mule. But once you hit your upgrade you can put them and their comments out of mind with the ignore feature. It will even edit their reps out of view.
Consider that might have been the product of your lens and the circling you were sensing from some more aggressive members early on. I didn't get anything like that sense from it and I have the advantage of a long association with him.
Rather, he was trying to help you early. You noted his nod to you posts prior, a welcoming. But like me, he understood where your hedging was going to take the inclination and discourse. Not having our long experience, I suppose, you didn't. So you read into it, into the increasingly hostile reception by some, who were put into a more aggressive mode in part by the vagueness of your response (though a few of them don't need much encouragement to battle).
That's where the tests can actually be helpful, as they aren't framed by the ecclesiastical fringe and do rather quickly get to the heart of Christian orthodoxy in a way that will pretty clearly set out fundamental distinctions.
Not necessarily and, I believe, at all in this case. Christian orthodoxy isn't really a mystery or even particularly complex. The complexities are almost always the intricate creations of various offshoots looking to establish their brand from another. For instance, the divinity of Christ is fundamental to Christian orthodoxy, though there are groups that dispute it and claim Christendom. Then there are things like Saturday or Sunday worship, wine or not, dancing or not, dunking or not, etc. Or, there's the salvific and the less concerning but frequently problematic distinctions that divide otherwise close cousins.
With respect, you didn't wander into your home and you aren't talking to yourself. So, if you're going to feel free to speak to the beliefs and practices of others, it's just good manners to be open with your own.
You should also recognize that an error in a test doesn't invalidate the test, only the portion where the error occurred, which is why a S&B will largely predict your level of accomplishment in college and why those who hold doctorates from reputable seats of learning will never find that measurement along the low average.
I don't believe that's the threshold though. Curiosity and a willingness to consider should be. A fairness that wants for particulars to have meaningful discourse, a more than one sided affair where both parties can understand the lexicon and contentions.
He's a stranger to you. I can understand why you might find yourself seeing a thing not offered, colored by the tone of a few comments that were of a sort and/or past experiences unrelated. I can also understand why people who might have been hopeful but wary might have become more convinced to remove a measure of good will when you acted in a manner consistent with people who've come here to play at something, even if that was coincidental and completely removed from your intent.
In short, we all look through the lens of our experience. You had a bad one elsewhere and maybe that made you wary and less inclined to clarify. Others have seen trolls roll through here over the years eager to point fingers and less willing to paint a clear enough picture to invite a similar scrutiny and criticism.
One note, on AMR, I can say that he's not a stranger to me and I can tell you from years of experience that his aim was clarity. We wrestled with some fairly substantive differences over the years but both remained and deepened a regard and friendship wherever we were in the course of difference. It's not a game to him. Both his joy and his academic background are in the faith (he has his doctorate in theology) and the inquiry that followed was an expression of those. And again, you weren't lacking a willingness to comment on the faith of others, from fairly odd generalizations about Protestants to particular judgments on the motivation of strangers...a thing to consider when you consider all of this.
My "hello" thread had about three people commenting when I first arrived. Two of them were looking for the bathroom.
lain:
glorydaz
Well-known member
This is your introduction...."The hostility of Christians saddens me...", "I do not suffer fools gladly...", and then the standard love your enemies claim. It looked to me like you were coming with a chip on your shoulder from the get go.
Then again in your introduction, the claim, "There are some who are nasty in the name of the Lord....", "I'm sure any decent dialogue I start will wind it's way down into an accusation that I am satan." Poor baby. Quickly followed up, of course, with the claim that you are to do good to those enemies.
Why are you asking me? Am I to flee into my closet screaming "Troll, Troll !!"?
Adding to your intro, we see this gem. Paranoid much?
My first post to you where you say I was seemingly "set off". Are you insane?
It didn't set me off. It set YOU off. (God knows why.)
You're the one who calls Christians "nasty", not me.
You're the one who preaches, Love your enemies, and counts Christians as your enemy when they happen to offend your fragile ego.
The only one I see being offended is YOU.
Gee, we weren't nice enough to the poor baby who came here to straighten out all the "nasty Christians" who post here. Boo Hoo
glorydaz
Well-known member
And to some it comes quite naturally....seeing no need to impress, as others here do.:Christine
Glory, by way of example, is on my ignore list. And I'll just about guarantee you that if she didn't have something to say about me already... no, it's about as big a lock as you can get that I've come up.
And that's what you do, Zenn. Find the voices you can agree and disagree with strongly, with some humor and grace and go at it. Leave the few (and they really are few) to toil and stew...okay, maybe keep one or two for comic relief who you'd otherwise ignore, but on the whole I'm offering decent advice.
And that's what you do, Zenn. Find the voices you can agree and disagree with strongly, with some humor and grace and go at it. Leave the few (and they really are few) to toil and stew...okay, maybe keep one or two for comic relief who you'd otherwise ignore, but on the whole I'm offering decent advice.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Town is on my mocking list, and if you last long enough, Zenn, you will either kiss his tush or he'll put you on his ignore list.
I love being on his list....I can mock him without having to hear his pompous replies. :banana:
Lon
Well-known member
Conciliation, perhaps, before re- :think:
We have a VERY eclectic group here. You've cults (JW, Unitarian, Mormon, Atheist, other), orthodox Orthodox, Catholics, catholics, etc. etc. We have a kind of truce more than conciliation. You'd not be alone here. I kind of feel like we are all the outcast kids (for the most part). This is a debate website and serious about the exchange. For me? Very difficult the first year. Why did I stay? My faith and theology were being tested, from all sides. Some of us sink, some of us swim. You too said you'd stick around for a bit so I think there is value even in such a site as this. Proverbs 27:6,17 MAKING friends here in the first place would be the hard part.
For this website, because it is so eclectic, there are no few drive-by's and attacks on a daily basis. Your friend 2003Cobra, for example, came in swinging against inerrancy. No give or willingness to listen, just indoctrination swinging a no-yield club. He arrived just a day or two before you.
I can respect a guy who'll pick me up after giving me a black eye. It is somewhat that kind of website.
Yep. Another reason I love it here. I HAVE to try to return good for evil...all the time. It forces ME to take another look at ME. "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me..." Trying, but still looking for 1 John 3:2
Well, some of the blue-collar language is off-putting. I do have questions, but am not really on the attack. You haven't even responded (and don't need to, I do sounding board posts, whether they are of service or not).
We have a couple of those here. One, advocating abortion, significantly bothered me, but he and I, though are polar opposites on many values, manage to share a few that unite most all of us, as a fallen human race. Most of us cannot totally escape imago deo, not even the atheist.
Something wrong with pigeon-holing? Here, for example: Does it help to know I'm a Reformed Calvinist with some unorthodox (orthodox being Calvinist Reformed) ideas about limited atonement? Most Calvinists accept my explanation, most others think I'm Amyraldian (which I was before). Is ANY of that helpful, as far as my beliefs are concerned? (This website is decidedly NOT Calvinist, that might help too?) :think:
I saw no heartfelt interest, TH. Just derision that I wouldn’t play his games. And while you may have known AMR for a number of years, I don’t, and only have these few posts upon which to base my interaction – A demand I take a test so its stereotyped pigeonholing could be used against me and a hasty, unfounded accusation that I was a fraud. (And that wasn’t confrontational?)[/QUOTE]
Depends on how thick one's skin is. When you feel pounced upon, even a sounding board type of post like this might be about as menacing as they come. There is a bit of schoolyard bullying tenor to the site. I'm okay in a scrap, don't really enjoy them much. A couple of my heavy scraps have ended amicably and I've won a brother and sister or four because of it. A couple of others went WAY overboard, cussing, threatening to bust my teeth, and the whole nine yards. Some people are VERY serious about their theological differences! If I can't use a few words to turn wrath or convince a stubborn man, I generally don't go the distance with them.
I'm not German but I've had several years and would like to visit some day. -Lon