Agreement

[Bootstrap]

In another thread, Soloist said this:

I don’t know if you noticed, but we on Mennonet tend to only discuss things we disagree on. There is very little energy put into agreements.

I think that's often true. And it often makes it feel more like a debate society than people in the Kingdom showing what it looks like to be an alternative to the world around us. To me, that's also quite different from what I have experienced in most Mennonite settings or other Christian settings.

Any thoughts about this?

Are the things we disagree about in these discussions the things we think are most important to discuss?

[steve-in-kville]

It is possible to discuss things in a civilized manner, but what I see here is straight up egotistical, more often than not. It's not hard to simply walk away from a thread that goes sideways.

[Bootstrap]

It is possible to discuss things in a civilized manner, but what I see here is straight up egotistical, more often than not. It's not hard to simply walk away from a thread that goes sideways.

Can you describe that in terms of the behavior you see?

People seem to think they know other people's motives and the inside of their hearts. I doubt that. I don't know if someone is actually egotistical, but I can see specific things that seem to go wrong in threads.

One of them, I think, is acting like you can see into someone else's heart and read their motives ;->

[temporal1]

Early on, i had the benefit of Robert’s informal counsel. i was brand-new to forums, had no idea what to expect.
my question was about why so many topics go unanswered, or with little response?

he said, something-like, when people agree, they tend to nod and quietly move on.
disagreement brings out response.

years later, i see how that is. over+over+over.

having said that, for anyone willing, digging through old topics, esp in Anabaptist+Christian Theology, there are tons of worthy discussions.

it’s a matter of being able to put on blinders to noise.
as well, the few high volume posters are likely to contribute to noise (myself included).

thing is, various serious attempts have been made to serve like-minded Christian members.
without (controversy) they don’t attract “traffic.”

it’s not “what i want.” it’s what i’ve observed. i accept it for what it is. and appreciate Light where it seeps in.
Light is present. recognize it and cherish it.

[Robert]

It is possible to discuss things in a civilized manner, but what I see here is straight up egotistical, more often than not. It's not hard to simply walk away from a thread that goes sideways.

It also is a bit of a hero complex too. Some feel they need to "save" everyone from bad information.

"Well, that is wrong and I must speak the truth so others are not dis-wayed."

"I know the real truth. I just figured it out. No. 2000 years of wisdom has been wrong because 'I' see the truth. I must tell all."

Fowler and Westerhoff also touch on this in the Stages of Faith. One stage is affiliated faith. We build and support our beliefs by those around us. If someone challenges it(says something to the contrary), we must push that person out since they do not fit in our view of faith(which is greatly built/bolstered on those around us).

[MaxPC]

It is possible to discuss things in a civilized manner, but what I see here is straight up egotistical, more often than not. It's not hard to simply walk away from a thread that goes sideways.

It also is a bit of a hero complex too. Some feel they need to "save" everyone from bad information.

"Well, that is wrong and I must speak the truth so others are not dis-wayed."

"I know the real truth. I just figured it out. No. 2000 years of wisdom has been wrong because 'I' see the truth. I must tell all."

Fowler and Westerhoff also touch on this in the Stages of Faith. One stage is affiliated faith. We build and support our beliefs by those around us. If someone challenges it(says something to the contrary), we must push that person out since they do not fit in our view of faith(which is greatly built/bolstered on those around us).

Indeed and amen. Fowler, et al made significant contributions in the field of developmental psychology as applied to the walk of faith. As well, Steve’s observation regarding how civilized discussions are important is a critical linchpin to intra-congregational morale when that congregation is composed of people scattered along the spectrum of those stages.

Addendum: Apologies for the academic rhetoric. Old Oxbridge habits die slowly. In essence, I am agreeing with Robert and Steve: that people within and without a congregation are all in different phases and stages of life. To maintain Christian joy and harmony, self - discipline is important to extend grace, compassion, and mature attitudes with our own conversations to avoid a pub brawl.

[Bootstrap]

Fowler and Westerhoff also touch on this in the Stages of Faith. One stage is affiliated faith. We build and support our beliefs by those around us. If someone challenges it(says something to the contrary), we must push that person out since they do not fit in our view of faith(which is greatly built/bolstered on those around us).

I think we see that in posts where people insist that the people who agree with them about X are the good people and attribute all kinds of nasty things to people who disagree with them. In Fowler & Westerhoff's model, that's typical of adolescents, and can feel very middle school.

It also is a bit of a hero complex too. Some feel they need to "save" everyone from bad information.

"Well, that is wrong and I must speak the truth so others are not dis-wayed."

"I know the real truth. I just figured it out. No. 2000 years of wisdom has been wrong because 'I' see the truth. I must tell all."

Here's something interesting about that list - this is a list of your judgements about people, not what people are saying, and probably not what they believe or how they think while they are posting. I suspect that goes back to Fowler & Westerhoff's model. We are often discussing things that are either (1) questions of fact or (2) markers of group identity, masquerading as matters of fact. If it's (2), then factual discussion is off the table, and judging the people can be a way to distract from actually discussing the subject, which may be uncomfortable if it challenges your group affiliation. I think that happens a lot.

The facts behind these questions are often important. And these facts are often knowable. I think it's a lot easier to nail down the facts than to nail down other people's motivations and inner self.

Of course, a lot of discussion is not about fact at all. But except for trivia, we don't often get a whole lot beyond that kind of discussion here. I think it gets crowded out by other things. Often, it feels like people are battling for their side. And that side is rarely the Kingdom of God. I think it's usually important to be able to disagree on the facts and to think for ourselves. But if factual claims are what we are discussing, I also think that means focusing on the facts, not on conflicting group identities.

[ken_sylvania]

It also is a bit of a hero complex too. Some feel they need to "save" everyone from bad information.

"Well, that is wrong and I must speak the truth so others are not dis-wayed."

"I know the real truth. I just figured it out. No. 2000 years of wisdom has been wrong because 'I' see the truth. I must tell all."

Here's something interesting about that list - this is a list of your judgements about people, not what people are saying, and probably not what they believe or how they think while they are posting. I suspect that goes back to Fowler & Westerhoff's model. We are often discussing things that are either (1) questions of fact or (2) markers of group identity, masquerading as matters of fact. If it's (2), then factual discussion is off the table, and judging the people can be a way to distract from actually discussing the subject, which may be uncomfortable if it challenges your group affiliation. I think that happens a lot.

It's reworded from what a number of posters have said recently, but close enough to recognize the sentiment.

[Sudsy]

Fowler and Westerhoff also touch on this in the Stages of Faith. One stage is affiliated faith. We build and support our beliefs by those around us. If someone challenges it(says something to the contrary), we must push that person out since they do not fit in our view of faith(which is greatly built/bolstered on those around us).

I think we see that in posts where people insist that the people who agree with them about X are the good people and attribute all kinds of nasty things to people who disagree with them. In Fowler & Westerhoff's model, that's typical of adolescents, and can feel very middle school.

It also is a bit of a hero complex too. Some feel they need to "save" everyone from bad information.

"Well, that is wrong and I must speak the truth so others are not dis-wayed."

"I know the real truth. I just figured it out. No. 2000 years of wisdom has been wrong because 'I' see the truth. I must tell all."

Here's something interesting about that list - this is a list of your judgements about people, not what people are saying, and probably not what they believe or how they think while they are posting. I suspect that goes back to Fowler & Westerhoff's model. We are often discussing things that are either (1) questions of fact or (2) markers of group identity, masquerading as matters of fact. If it's (2), then factual discussion is off the table, and judging the people can be a way to distract from actually discussing the subject, which may be uncomfortable if it challenges your group affiliation. I think that happens a lot.

The facts behind these questions are often important. And these facts are often knowable. I think it's a lot easier to nail down the facts than to nail down other people's motivations and inner self.

Of course, a lot of discussion is not about fact at all. But except for trivia, we don't often get a whole lot beyond that kind of discussion here. I think it gets crowded out by other things. Often, it feels like people are battling for their side. And that side is rarely the Kingdom of God. I think it's usually important to be able to disagree on the facts and to think for ourselves. But if factual claims are what we are discussing, I also think that means focusing on the facts, not on conflicting group identities.

Imo this is an example of various personal judgments being made. Some are preceded by 'I think' , others are stated as facts that could be challenged for proof. And that is my judgment, right or wrong and could be challenged whether it is supported by enough fact by a challenger.

I'm all for seeking truth but I think it can be done without defaming another's character. And I think that is something we all have to work on, some more than others. And that is an opinion that could be fact or not.

[Josh]

I'm all for seeking truth but I think it can be done without defaming another's character. And I think that is something we all have to work on, some more than others. And that is an opinion that could be fact or not.

I wouldn't agree with this.

Let's say someone decides to obviously lie. (We have had a few people on MD/MN in the past who have done this.) Perhaps they show up here, and start telling us all that in Amish country, the sky is green, not blue.

I, in turn assert that I think that in Amish country, the sky is also blue, just like it is everywhere else.

I am implicitly stating that this person is either very, very confused or else is a liar. Doing so effectively defames this person's character (although I'm not sure "defame" is the right word when, well, the person actually does have poor character).

Some people are indeed liars and make stuff up. That's different from having you facts wrong or having opinion-based disagreements.