Sattler College Turmoil

[Josh]

I didn't rebuke JM for raising concerns with FOTW or Sattler, and neither of us are members of either institution, so that's a red herring at the moment.

As you know, I've been on this forum for many years, mostly as a lurker. I don't make public personal rebukes lightly, and this one is based on patterns I've observed for a very long time.

I trust readers to draw their own conclusions, as you have, about whether the rebuke is warranted and about who is guilty of abusing power in the present discussion. I don't care about winning a debate, only about discharging my duty to speak truth with the voice I've been given.

I feel it would be better to deliver such a rebuke one on one. I’d be glad to get the two of you in touch with each other.

I think delivering one in a thread that is clearly a debate thread is out of order.

[Josh]

As you know, I've been on this forum for many years, mostly as a lurker. I don't make public personal rebukes lightly, and this one is based on patterns I've observed for a very long time.

I trust readers to draw their own conclusions, as you have, about whether the rebuke is warranted and about who is guilty of abusing power in the present discussion. I don't care about winning a debate, only about discharging my duty to speak truth with the voice I've been given.

As you know, I’ve been on this forum and its predecessor for a decade. I have observed patterns for a very long time with FotW and Sattler and their defenders.

I also trust observers to draw their own conclusions, which many have. I don’t think you’re abusing power, and never said you did, but I do see abuse of power as seemingly the modus operandi of how FotW operates.

And again, spiritual rebukes should be done one on one. I think highly enough of both of you to think that should be possible.

[mike]

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

Yeah that's a little over the top in my view. I have met JM personally and quite like yourself sometimes, jahertz (and some others here for that matter), his online rhetoric and debate tactics sometimes may not be fully representative of his more mild-mannered real-life persona, Christian charity, and general affability.

[jahertz]

As you know, I've been on this forum for many years, mostly as a lurker. I don't make public personal rebukes lightly, and this one is based on patterns I've observed for a very long time.

I trust readers to draw their own conclusions, as you have, about whether the rebuke is warranted and about who is guilty of abusing power in the present discussion. I don't care about winning a debate, only about discharging my duty to speak truth with the voice I've been given.

As you know, I’ve been on this forum and its predecessor for a decade. I have observed patterns for a very long time with FotW and Sattler and their defenders.

I also trust observers to draw their own conclusions, which many have. I don’t think you’re abusing power, and never said you did, but I do see abuse of power as seemingly the modus operandi of how FotW operates.

And again, spiritual rebukes should be done one on one. I think highly enough of both of you to think that should be possible.

I don't know how many ways I need to rephrase this, but allegations about how FOTW operates are not germane to the legitimacy of a rebuke from one non-FOTW member to another.

Private rebuke is the normative first step for personal, private offenses. Many Christians, including me, believe public rebuke (and public repentance) are appropriate for cases of public sin.

In such cases, the absence of public pushback normalizes bad behavior, chills discussion, and emboldens the offender to continue his misconduct to his own detriment and the detriment of the community.

And that's probably all I have to say about this for the present.

[brothereicher]

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

Yeah that's a little over the top in my view. I have met JM personally and quite like yourself sometimes, jahertz (and some others here for that matter), his online rhetoric and debate tactics sometimes may not be fully representative of his more mild-mannered real-life persona, Christian charity, and general affability.

Well, that's all well and good, but I've only met him online, and I have only seen his online rhetoric and debate tactics, and the last several pages have been clearly engaged in in bad faith, as I have documented.

We all get carried away, and one interaction isn't a whole life, and JM may be the nicest man in the world.

But, as documented above, this engagement has shown multiple markers of bad faith, and it would be great to have an acknowledgement of that. Otherwise, your claims of his niceness and charity offline ring hollow to me.

[jahertz]

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

Yeah that's a little over the top in my view. I have met JM personally and quite like yourself sometimes, jahertz (and some others here for that matter), his online rhetoric and debate tactics sometimes may not be fully representative of his more mild-mannered real-life persona, Christian charity, and general affability.

Your testimony about JM heartens me. I have indeed been guilty often of committing errors in writing that reflected poorly on the person my friends knew me to be. When people have called me on that (with varying degrees of grace) I have tried to use that feedback to better calibrate my future interactions.

If what you say about him is true, I expect JM will find some way to profit from my rebuke in the same manner.

[mike]

Well, that's all well and good, but I've only met him online, and I have only seen his online rhetoric and debate tactics, and the last several pages have been clearly engaged in in bad faith, as I have documented.

We all get carried away, and one interaction isn't a whole life, and JM may be the nicest man in the world.

But, as documented above, this engagement has shown multiple markers of bad faith, and it would be great to have an acknowledgement of that. Otherwise, your claims of his niceness and charity offline ring hollow to me.

It's very hard for a person to know himself, and especially hard for a person to understand how he or she comes across on the Internet. By this point in my life, I have known numerous people who routinely come across pretty harshly to individuals and groups of people online but apparently cannot see themselves as being anything other than wonderful, kind truth-tellers and prophets.

I do include myself in that first statement.

[mike]

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

Yeah that's a little over the top in my view. I have met JM personally and quite like yourself sometimes, jahertz (and some others here for that matter), his online rhetoric and debate tactics sometimes may not be fully representative of his more mild-mannered real-life persona, Christian charity, and general affability.

Your testimony about JM heartens me. I have indeed been guilty often of projecting an air in writing that reflected poorly on the person my friends knew me to be. When people have called me on that (with varying degrees of grace) I have tried to use that feedback to better calibrate my future communications.

If what you say about him is true, I expect JM will find some way to profit from my rebuke in the same manner.

A good response. Thanks. And do look up JM if you're ever in Baltimore.

[Josh]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

[brothereicher]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

I know how people in cities talk.

After all, I live in one that is universally recognized as "fun."

I also know what bad faith is, which I've already pointed out above.