Valerie, I have to disagree with this. Boot has become gentler in all areas since i Have known him, even most of the time when dealing with Max. I find that Boot listens and accepts what other posters say, more so than a few others I could think of.Valerie wrote:
To me, Max knows better- no offense to Boot, but I have seen him go round and round on things to prove people wrong about many things, like marriage and divorce for example- and I have never really seen anyone convince Boot of anything- he always keeps his original opinions-but Boot has pretty much made it clear he thinks Max is a liar. I think Max probably recognized that, and face it, being a Catholic on an Anabaptist website has been quite enlightening to see how a Catholic might be treated- I think Max has shown his love for Anabaptists and I feel like the Anabaptists have reminded him often of their loathing for Catholics.
Response to Sudsy on Max
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
0 x
-
- Posts: 16281
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
- Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
- Affiliation: Christian other
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
i agree, i think boot has learned better CM words for use on this forum.Hats Off wrote: Valerie, I have to disagree with this. Boot has become gentler in all areas since i Have known him, even most of the time when dealing with Max. I find that Boot listens and accepts what other posters say, more so than a few others I could think of.
i don't agree that he is dealing with Max any differently .. or, as others point out, it's an odd thing, boot addressing Max over+over, knowing Max does not want to communicate with him. if Max is wrong to ask for this, in my view, boot is just as wrong in attempting to force his will on Max. boot admits as much, without apology, he defends himself, making it beyond debate.
Sudsy, Valerie, Gary K, possibly others, have tried to address boot on it, no change.
others enable boot to continue, so, he dismisses the former and continues with an entitled attitude.
our human words are imperfect, but, i believe there is a valid message in there.
Gary K is able to find most helpful words in a succinct way. direct, less confusing (i admire this!)
i know Gary is busy IRL, but, i so appreciate his forum input.
i have no answers, thankfully, decisions are not mine.
now i need to read, and stop writing!
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
Having gotten involved several times in dialog between objective truth and subjective 'truth' in various subjects, both on MN and MD, IMO when it becomes obvious that no headway is being made, it becomes better to drop the matter and go to other things by which perhaps we can "Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die..." (ESV)Neto wrote:In this general context of dealing with opinions you do not wish to have the appearance of being normal anabaptist thought, back in the MD days I got ensnared in a discussion with someone who was questioning the deity of the Christ of God. I thought that it was important that this false doctrine not go unchallenged, so I jumped in. There were a couple of other participants, but most dropped out after awhile, and I was a bit put out that everyone else had abandoned the 'discussion'. But then I did some searching on the MD database, and found that this issue had been 'discussed' with this same individual a couple of times before, and that all of the Scriptures I was quoting had been referenced already in these previous discussions. So, now I tend to just hope that a new-comer will search enough to find the former threads. But maybe that doesn't happen, so maybe it would be best to simply reference the former thread in any new ones that come up, but not go to all the work of muddling through it all over again each time.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
I really doubt that I am going to make headway with Max. I'm also skeptical that long threads about how we talk about each other help much, but I do prefer to have that discussion in one place, not scattered among many threads, so if someone raises the question I will respond here.
My goal is really much simpler. If we spend so much time carefully examining claims about history with the Swiss and Dutch Mennonites, and someone makes claims about Plain Catholics, I think we can examine those claims in the same way. If, for some reason, we are discussing things that hinge on what the Catholic Church teaches, the Catechism and Canon Law are both easily available, and neither is hard to read. Maybe I'm a researcher at heart, but I think that we need to feel free to get at the basic facts behind a topic we are discussing. And that means all of us have to be able to seek out facts. Researchers get a little obsessive about seeking out facts sometimes, and perhaps I've spent too much time doing research, but I do think facts matter. And it's hard to be serious about truth without being serious about facts.
Max seems to want us to believe that only he can tell us what the Catholic Church teaches, and what he says doesn't always seem to match official sources. He wants us to believe that whatever he says about Plain Catholics is true because he says it, but as the OP indicates, there are some real questions about that. This is an unusual attitude on MN - most of us do not expect anyone to believe something just because of the person who says it, most of us do not expect to have a special status that says what we say will not be challenged. "Believe me" is rarely a reason to believe anyone.
If these topics are appropriate for him to discuss, I think it is appropriate for the rest of us to discuss too. And I think there needs to be room for others to weigh in on the facts. Are there ways to reduce friction while still making room for the facts? In a PM, one person suggested that I not address Max directly, since I know he will not respond. That makes sense. Are there other ways? I really don't want a power struggle or a fight, but I don't want to stop returning to the facts either.
My goal is really much simpler. If we spend so much time carefully examining claims about history with the Swiss and Dutch Mennonites, and someone makes claims about Plain Catholics, I think we can examine those claims in the same way. If, for some reason, we are discussing things that hinge on what the Catholic Church teaches, the Catechism and Canon Law are both easily available, and neither is hard to read. Maybe I'm a researcher at heart, but I think that we need to feel free to get at the basic facts behind a topic we are discussing. And that means all of us have to be able to seek out facts. Researchers get a little obsessive about seeking out facts sometimes, and perhaps I've spent too much time doing research, but I do think facts matter. And it's hard to be serious about truth without being serious about facts.
Max seems to want us to believe that only he can tell us what the Catholic Church teaches, and what he says doesn't always seem to match official sources. He wants us to believe that whatever he says about Plain Catholics is true because he says it, but as the OP indicates, there are some real questions about that. This is an unusual attitude on MN - most of us do not expect anyone to believe something just because of the person who says it, most of us do not expect to have a special status that says what we say will not be challenged. "Believe me" is rarely a reason to believe anyone.
If these topics are appropriate for him to discuss, I think it is appropriate for the rest of us to discuss too. And I think there needs to be room for others to weigh in on the facts. Are there ways to reduce friction while still making room for the facts? In a PM, one person suggested that I not address Max directly, since I know he will not respond. That makes sense. Are there other ways? I really don't want a power struggle or a fight, but I don't want to stop returning to the facts either.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
With respect, I think "force his will on Max" means "claim the right to participate in discussions and point out relevant facts".temporal1 wrote:i agree, i think boot has learned better CM words for use on this forum.
i don't agree that he is dealing with Max any differently .. or, as others point out, it's an odd thing, boot addressing Max over+over, knowing Max does not want to communicate with him. if Max is wrong to ask for this, in my view, boot is just as wrong in attempting to force his will on Max. boot admits as much, without apology, he defends himself, making it beyond debate.
I do not see any meaningful way I could "force my will" on Max beyond that.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
As I read the New Testament, Jesus did continue to say the same things, over and over again, to religious people who did not want to hear it. I'm not convinced that it's always Christlike to shut up just because someone might not want to hear it.GaryK wrote:Fighting it out to the bitter end doesn't seem very Christlike to me. And this is in no way an endorsement of one party over the other. Jesus had some pretty straight forward things to say about power struggles.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
I was responding to JM's characterization of what's going on.Bootstrap wrote:As I read the New Testament, Jesus did continue to say the same things, over and over again, to religious people who did not want to hear it. I'm not convinced that it's always Christlike to shut up just because someone might not want to hear it.GaryK wrote:Fighting it out to the bitter end doesn't seem very Christlike to me. And this is in no way an endorsement of one party over the other. Jesus had some pretty straight forward things to say about power struggles.
0 x
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
Ah, that context is very helpful. Let me quote that and respond to it.GaryK wrote:I was responding to JM's characterization of what's going on.
I agree with most of this. I want to be able to discuss what is true without having to make it a power struggle. I don't want to abandon discussing what is true just because someone might be offended. I don't want it to be a fight.justme wrote:this is how i see it.
whether max's people are a figment of his imagination or not, is not the point anymore.
the point, as i see it, is that max was caught in what boot feels are falsehoods, and max hasn't acknowledged that. max continues to portray himself as the person with all the answers and boot doesn't want folks on mn to think that max is truthful.
i watched the attempt at reconciliation. it was one-sided. max refused to participate.
so for those of you who feel that max is trying to be nice by not corresponding with boot? i disagree. it's passive aggressive, and it's a power struggle between the two of them. let them fight it out to the bitter end, and hopefully they won't take anyone else down with them when they go out in flames.
my opinion.
Any suggestions?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
Stop fighting.Bootstrap wrote:Ah, that context is very helpful. Let me quote that and respond to it.GaryK wrote:I was responding to JM's characterization of what's going on.
I agree with most of this. I want to be able to discuss what is true without having to make it a power struggle. I don't want to abandon discussing what is true just because someone might be offended. I don't want it to be a fight.justme wrote:this is how i see it.
whether max's people are a figment of his imagination or not, is not the point anymore.
the point, as i see it, is that max was caught in what boot feels are falsehoods, and max hasn't acknowledged that. max continues to portray himself as the person with all the answers and boot doesn't want folks on mn to think that max is truthful.
i watched the attempt at reconciliation. it was one-sided. max refused to participate.
so for those of you who feel that max is trying to be nice by not corresponding with boot? i disagree. it's passive aggressive, and it's a power struggle between the two of them. let them fight it out to the bitter end, and hopefully they won't take anyone else down with them when they go out in flames.
my opinion.
Any suggestions?
0 x
Re: Response to Sudsy on Max
I do want to discuss facts, I don't want to fight. What guidelines would you suggest?GaryK wrote:Stop fighting.
Or perhaps this thread has run its course. I think I have explained - in the OP - why I do not believe some of the things Max says, and why I want to continue to be free to engage in discussions and insert a fact here and there. I want to try to do what without fighting. I will be trying to do that.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?