Can we make MN less hostile?

[steve-in-kville]

Lex has been banned. I am not a babysitter.

I think that it might be good to post an Admin notice on the worst of his threads, to advise anyone who wanders onto the forum, that these kinds of attitudes are not approved of or tolerated here.

Maybe not a bad idea. If a seeker were to find us through a search, and those are the first things they read, it may not be the greatest first impression.

[Soloist]

Lex has been banned. I am not a babysitter.

I think that it might be good to post an Admin notice on the worst of his threads, to advise anyone who wanders onto the forum, that these kinds of attitudes are not approved of or tolerated here.

Maybe not a bad idea. If a seeker were to find us through a search, and those are the first things they read, it may not be the greatest first impression.

Wife: I agree, I remember looking at the forum rules and thinking there should be something written out about racism, vulgar language, ect. Specifically because he was making mass generalizations and accusations on a bunch of people merely because of their ethnicity, and trying to convince other people to hate them too. It shouldn't be acceptable to do this for any ethnic group.

[Josh]

It seems better to simply expect people to behave themselves, and if they don't, have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave. In this particular case, I think what Lex said and the responses of others to him can speak for themselves.

I don't think some "Code of Conduct" is necessary.

[Sudsy]

It seems better to simply expect people to behave themselves, and if they don't, have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave. In this particular case, I think what Lex said and the responses of others to him can speak for themselves.

I don't think some "Code of Conduct" is necessary.

Is calling someone's thoughts and input, for example, 'absurd' ? Is there not a better way to say that one sees things differently and says why politely ?

[Josh]

It seems better to simply expect people to behave themselves, and if they don't, have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave. In this particular case, I think what Lex said and the responses of others to him can speak for themselves.

I don't think some "Code of Conduct" is necessary.

Is calling someone's thoughts and input, for example, 'absurd' ? Is there not a better way to say that one sees things differently and says why politely ?

I think some ideas are indeed absurd and don’t feel ashamed for calling it out when I see it.

[Sudsy]

It seems better to simply expect people to behave themselves, and if they don't, have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave. In this particular case, I think what Lex said and the responses of others to him can speak for themselves.

I don't think some "Code of Conduct" is necessary.

Is calling someone's thoughts and input, for example, 'absurd' ? Is there not a better way to say that one sees things differently and says why politely ?

I think some ideas are indeed absurd and don’t feel ashamed for calling it out when I see it.

And because not all believers do not agree that this is how we are to behave and there are many scriptures about how we are to behave, then I would agree with your previous suggestion to 'have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave'. Imo, we often cross the line, myself included, to what scripture says regarding how we should treat one another when we disagree.

I agree we don't need a "Code of Conduct" additional to what scripture already tells us, so, for instance, we could take a word like calling someone's thoughts 'absurd' and see if it passes a scriptural test. I believe there is a way to disagree between Christians and it can be done passing the test of how scripture says to do it.

This reminds me of a thread awhile back called 'Thoughts re Colossians' and the text of Col 3 gave us some information on putting on the new self and what that looks like in our behaviour. However, it didn't get much attention. And there is many other texts that speak on this subject.

I'm all for a new thread or perhaps giving more input to the 'Thoughts re Colossians' thread that could be used to pursue an improved way of sharing our differences here in our choice of words.

[Josh]

I won’t relent on condemning infant baptism, the chiefest of abominations of the pope.

Does it make MN hostile? No. It is not hostile to contend for sound doctrine. And indeed it is core to what being a Mennonite is. If anyone comes to a Mennonite space, they should expect to see infant baptism challenged and denounced.

[Sudsy]

I won’t relent on condemning infant baptism, the chiefest of abominations of the pope.

Does it make MN hostile? No. It is not hostile to contend for sound doctrine. And indeed it is core to what being a Mennonite is. If anyone comes to a Mennonite space, they should expect to see infant baptism challenged and denounced.

And I believe we can challenge opposing views but how we do it and the words we use I believe is important and should not violate scriptures on how we express our beliefs.

Col 4:6 MSG says - 'Be gracious in your speech. The goal is to bring out the best in others in a conversation, not put them down, not cut them out.'

Well, got to go for now. Will pick this up later.

[Josh]

The Bible has plenty to say about contending with false teaching and for sound doctrine. There is no place for tolerating promotion of infant baptism in a Mennonite forum.

[temporal1]

It seems better to simply expect people to behave themselves, and if they don't, have an open discussion about what the Bible teaches us about how to behave. In this particular case, I think what Lex said and the responses of others to him can speak for themselves.

I don't think some "Code of Conduct" is necessary.

i’m happy with admin-mods, esp their selfless commitment to being present.
i felt the same with MD, but, admin was usually missing, causing some problems for mods, and frustration with members.

my sense is, Robert does a lot to PREVENT most problems from entering?
members tend to take unseen good for granted. the human way.

i’m always sad when a member is banned.
i’m encouraged they are given explanations and warnings.

in the past there was one banned member who attempted to reenter under changed usernames.
mods were not fooled! they took care of it. i believe in fair ways.