Can we make MN less hostile?

[Bootstrap]

This is a big difference in us. I feel EVERY conversation and discussion involves a relationship. It is either building one up or tearing one down; a relationship, not the person. EVERY conversation affects a relationship.

I don't think that's a difference, I think that's something we agree on. We may play by different rules there, though. In my world, listening to someone share about themselves or their personal journey is different from a discussion about facts or opinions on science or politics or whatever.

In my world, disagreeing with a fact or opinion is not the same thing as tearing down the other person. I assume that people have different opinions. I assume none of us knows all the facts, but if we put together what we all know and look at it carefully we can learn a lot. It works best when everyone agrees that we don't have to convince each other, we can discuss and still disagree. And for the most part, when people change their minds, they do it slowly, over time. If we can do that together, that says a lot about our relationship.

If that's not the way we approach it, that also says something about our relationship. Sometimes someone starts a thread where they announce the One True Opinion. Sometimes they imply that they question the character, honesty, or intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them. That basically says it's OK to question the other person, but not to question facts or perspectives. It says that the other person is not as valuable as my One True Opinion.

I think it's helpful to be "matter of fact" about matters of fact.

I see facts as secondary to the relationship. I can deal with a friend being totally wrong about something. That is why I still like you even though you are totally wrong about climate change. (See, that is the jokester in me. You take a statement like that very matter of fact, but I am actually grinning as I type it. I like to tease people I like. It is mostly misread on forums unless the person knows me really well personally.)

I think I would have gotten the joke without all the commentary ;->

There's a long list of things that I'm wrong about, but I have no idea what they are. I'm convinced that I'm right. To me, being "matter of fact" about matters of fact is an important way to protect the relationship. Either of us can be right or wrong about any matter of fact. If we disagree about something like that, we can choose to examine the facts more closely together or not.

I'm not sure why, but we often seem to do best discussing the Bible or theology, even complicated subjects that involve textual criticism.

I have done that so much for over 20 years that I just need a break from it. One of the reasons I post so little right now. I just want to laugh and a serious forum is not real conducive to me.

Sure, I get that. And maybe being around real people in real life is better than anything that can happen on a forum.

[Bootstrap]

It means they eventually dominate the conversation and other, less loud posters are driven away and eventually give up on this forum.

that's rich.
the most prolific poster on the forum at this time is complaining that the less loud posters are being driven away by the ones who dominate the conversation.

But Josh has been attacked rather personally and unfairly at times. When that happens, he tends to get his hackles up.

[Robert]

And maybe being around real people in real life is better than anything that can happen on a forum.

I ain't associating with people in real life either. I hide in my house most the time, only to venture out when the food gets low.

I get out about once a week and just go to the store. I can be unknown and unimpeded in my tasks. From a social butterfly to a hermit. I wonder what I will turn into as I break out of my chrysalis. I got 2.5 years before that happens. No rush. Wife thinks I need to speed that up a bit, but facts on the ground dictate that, not personal choice. Now this is fun. Being all vague and not really opening up. Dropping little tidbits but no really sharing.

But Josh has been attacked rather personally and unfairly at times.

He needs to report when that happens, as others should report when he does that to them. Unfair attacks are reportable issues. We do want a constructive forum. When two people go at, it is often fair game. Both should be able to stand as adults. If it gets petty and name calling starts, then we do need to cool things down, and we will. The challenge is if two people go at it, and others start picking sides, then wars are started and tribes are created. Your, in a generic sense, attempt to help becomes the start of factions. The like button helps at times. If someone posts something and others click the little heart, they also know others are supportive even if one disagrees. It has helped me several times when others click the little heart and I see that there is support for my position or post. Now if we could just get a tickle button, I would use it constantly, mostly on you.

[Bootstrap]

Now if we could just get a tickle button, I would use it constantly, mostly on you.

I think you know HTML and PHP well enough to make that happen. You could start with the source code for the like button.

[MaxPC]

I'm not fixated on being right. I simply give correct information about the Catholic Church when there are misconceptions posted since I am the resident Catholic and canonist.

I do like to inquire about Anabaptist perceptions simply because I feel this is something that not only my church but all churches would receive a benefit. The Anabaptist perspective brings a message sorely needed in this world and for one, I'm glad to see it continue.

One thing that I have learned over the last 12 years on MN and MD is that there are varied views of what Catholics believe and what Anabaptists believe.

So if you share your perspective about Catholicism, I take it as Max's concept of Catholicism. I don't necessarily interpret your perspective as an accurate depiction of Catholicism.

When I or Robert share about Anabaptism, it is our perspective of Anabaptism. I am only familiar with a small segment of views within Anabaptism. Someone has said that you can find an early Anabaptist who will agree with almost anything you believe.

So at the end of the day, I think it is more valuable to evaluate beliefs, ideas, values and concepts and then we have a basis for discussion.

I can agree with you up to a point regarding Anabaptist perspectives. It's one reason I like to ask for those perspectives as I feel they offer valuable insight for the nonAnabaptist fellowships.

In Catholic World though, there is an official and uniform teaching (as explicated by our Catechism) and then there are misconceptions of that official teaching, yes, even among Catholics who should "know their stuff". Canonists such as myself were trained in the official teaching so we do have that advantage. We had to know our "stuff". When I share the Catholic World teaching, I'm doing so from the Catechism and related works which serve as official teaching, not from a personal perspective.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in my time here on the forum, those who are active Anabaptists have explained that there is no central magisterium for disseminating a uniform interpretation of the Dordrecht or the Schleitheim confessions? That each fellowship will have a shared view on the Trinity and the Bible but on other matters there will be differences?

[shadrach]

I've belonged to a lot of forums since about 2000-ish. Various interests. I've dealt with all-out professional trolls. I've also been in honest misunderstandings. My policy has always been:

You come after me publically, I will respond likewise. You wanna play games? I'll play the game back, and I'll play the game better.

You contact me privately, most likely it'll be squashed within 10 seconds.

Is this satire?

[RZehr]

You contact me privately, most likely it'll be squashed within 10 seconds.

I had to scratch my head too over this line. I'm not sure what you mean by it.

[steve-in-kville]

Is this satire?

Yes, my lame attempt at dry humor, yet I'm trying to make a point: If you accuse someone publically of something, they will most likely respond publically to that accusation. And not only defend themselves, but try to "one up" the accuser with counter-accusations, thus starting an all out flame war on the 'net. Its human nature.

If we were more open to contacting someone via PM, maybe ask them to clarify their statement, most likely its smoothed out and both parties walk away on good terms.

[Bootstrap]

So if you share your perspective about Catholicism, I take it as Max's concept of Catholicism. I don't necessarily interpret your perspective as an accurate depiction of Catholicism.

Exactly.

In Catholic World though, there is an official and uniform teaching (as explicated by our Catechism) and then there are misconceptions of that official teaching, yes, even among Catholics who should "know their stuff".

So if we want the official teaching, we should look to the Catechism or Canon Law. There are canon law blogs and forums too, and books and articles. For the most part, people don't come here to discuss official Catholic teaching, but when it comes up, it's helpful if you quote from these sources and point us to them.

Canonists such as myself were trained in the official teaching so we do have that advantage. We had to know our "stuff". When I share the Catholic World teaching, I'm doing so from the Catechism and related works which serve as official teaching, not from a personal perspective.

You seem to want us to give you a special status to speak authoritatively on Catholic teaching. You cite credentials that we can't verify - do you really have a J.C.L or a J.C.D? If so, how can we know that?

Let me relate that to the topic of this thread - to me, it feels like you are personally offended and get angry if someone questions a claim that you present. You want us to defer to your authority. That kind of role basically doesn't exist on a forum like this. We don't know you personally, we have no way of verifying your credentials as a canonist, and many of us don't think credentials mean someone is always right. You are someone we know from a forum on the Internet.

If you share your personal opinion, credentials are not necessary. If you quote from official Catholic teaching and respond when others quote from official Catholic teaching, the authority comes from the source, e.g. the Catechism or Canon Law.

When someone brings it up, quoting the official Catholic teaching is generally a better way to let us know what it is. If someone else quotes from official teachings and gets it wrong, help us put it in perspective.

And of course, if you are a canonist, that doesn't make you an expert on Church doctrine.

Neither the Code nor the educational regime of canon lawyers authorizes a canonist, as a canonist, to pronounce on matters of Church doctrine. Canon lawyers are not theologians, moralists, psychologists, or pastoral planners. They are lawyers. This is an important point, all the more so because canonists are sometimes apt to forget it themselves.

[shadrach]

steve-in-kville, Thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate the application of satire in this circumstance. I was just too slow to know if you were serious or not.