Can we make MN less hostile?

[Heirbyadoption]

For Boot to be happy, MN has to become a theologically liberal discussion board with strict rules for censorship in place to keep anyone conservative out.

Finally, getting down to the brass tacks, perhaps...
Boot, I take issue with some of Beth Moore's teachings as well, but I was understanding your "goon squad" comment to refer to the comments of some here on MN for the discussion (and perhaps persuasion) of others involved in said discussion solely here on MN. Was there a broader context to your statement and I'm just too dense to see it? Regardless, the "Beth Moore" and "goon squad" issues really seem to be surface level in the context of the stated tensions here. Perhaps you could address Josh's above statement directly for the vast milieu of we who remain involved to varying degrees on MN - would you really prefer to see MN move in a more-theologically-liberal direction with censorship designed to keep more conservative folks out...?

[Robert]

Boot claimed MN has a goon squad out to get Beth Moore, which is farcical. Beth Moore has much more money and power than any of us here. I doubt she has any idea who any of us even are. And, generally speaking, nobody outside of MN is listening much to what people on MN are saying.

The reality is that Boot, and others like him, seem to want to censor and silence any criticism of theological liberals like Beth Moore. For Boot to be happy, MN has to become a theologically liberal discussion board with strict rules for censorship in place to keep anyone conservative out.

This is really not helpful. This is like, "Prove you are not a wife beater."

There are no I statements and just one person's opinion of what another person wants or is saying. Josh speak for yourself not others, please.

[Bootstrap]

Finally, getting down to the brass tacks, perhaps...
Boot, I take issue with some of Beth Moore's teachings as well, but I was understanding your "goon squad" comment to refer to the comments of some here on MN for the discussion (and perhaps persuasion) of others involved in said discussion solely here on MN. Was there a broader context to your statement and I'm just too dense to see it? Regardless, the "Beth Moore" and "goon squad" issues really seem to be surface level in the context of the stated tensions here. Perhaps you could address Josh's above statement directly for the vast milieu of we who remain involved to varying degrees on MN - would you really prefer to see MN move in a more-theologically-liberal direction with censorship designed to keep more conservative folks out...?

Certainly not. And seriously, is there any chance that would ever happen?

But to me, even if "goon squad" is not a helpful term, it's pointing to what I see as a core issue. One of the main lines of argument on MN is to denounce people and groups, saying things about them that may not be true, and then to denounce people who ask for proof or provide proof that some of the things that are being said are wrong. And when denouncing people, they feel free to make things up that aren't true, to speak for the other person, portraying their inner thoughts - but not things that the other person would ever actually think or say. If I provide evidence, people sometimes respond by saying something like "oh yes, you would think that because that's the kind of person you are" - arguments against the person are used instead of addressing the evidence. That's more or less the textbook definition of an ad hominem attack.

To me, that's pretty much open hostility and factionalism. And that's what I would like to see us work against. If I am contributing to it, I want to understand how. Soloist has said some helpful things that I will respond to next.

In general, this is most prominent in the politics threads. Perhaps because the commentators and memes and Youtube videos we see around us are full of this. And I think it has gotten worse on MN at the same time that it has gotten worse in society around us.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps the fact that it doesn't get lost in the noise is exactly why you used it. You knew it would offend people and wanted to make them look bad through the reaction.

I don't think that's it. In general, I don't think I am "playing to the crowd" in what I write, I am trying to get the attention of the person I am responding to. I am trying to say "ouch, that hurts, it's not true and it's not fair, you should know that, I can't believe you are treating me this way".

Ignoring targeted comments would result in a more peaceful interchange but you likely want to insure someone doesn't believe you believe what they said was true and thats why you respond. Basically, you are allowing yourself to be baited and placing bait back.

Yes, I think that's true. In general, I think some people are having an argument with an imaginary Bootstrap that they made up while ignoring what I am actually saying, and playing to the crowd while doing it. I would rather like to own what I believe and think and say. But you're right- this often does amount to letting people troll me.

But I would like to understand more about what you mean by "placing bait back". That's what I can control, I'm probably not aware of what I am doing sometimes.

I'm not saying that I hold no guilt, I bait people and respond to bait too.

Not much. I think you are generally pretty good on this front.

[Sudsy]

This is an invite to the thread 'Relationship Works of the Flesh'. The fights that occur on MN are all what scripture calls works of the flesh. These fights are ego issues that are in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit.

If one disagrees that these are not works of the flesh/ego, then perhaps we can talk about what the scriptures mean in the relationship descriptions on what are works of the flesh.

Note, this text Gal 5:19-21 has a pretty serious consequence for us if we don't stop this behavior. This is not an issue of just trying to make MN less hostile but rather an area of sinning that can keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Very, very serious. To be baited into these fights could be risking our own salvation as this text indicate.

I previously said my last post on this thread might be my last one but this subject is so serious with it's eternal consequence I had to post this. We are in a war but it isn't to be with one another but rather with our flesh/ego.

[ken_sylvania]

Finally, getting down to the brass tacks, perhaps...
Boot, I take issue with some of Beth Moore's teachings as well, but I was understanding your "goon squad" comment to refer to the comments of some here on MN for the discussion (and perhaps persuasion) of others involved in said discussion solely here on MN. Was there a broader context to your statement and I'm just too dense to see it? Regardless, the "Beth Moore" and "goon squad" issues really seem to be surface level in the context of the stated tensions here. Perhaps you could address Josh's above statement directly for the vast milieu of we who remain involved to varying degrees on MN - would you really prefer to see MN move in a more-theologically-liberal direction with censorship designed to keep more conservative folks out...?

Certainly not. And seriously, is there any chance that would ever happen?

But to me, even if "goon squad" is not a helpful term, it's pointing to what I see as a core issue. One of the main lines of argument on MN is to denounce people and groups, saying things about them that may not be true, and then to denounce people who ask for proof or provide proof that some of the things that are being said are wrong. And when denouncing people, they feel free to make things up that aren't true, to speak for the other person, portraying their inner thoughts - but not things that the other person would ever actually think or say. If I provide evidence, people sometimes respond by saying something like "oh yes, you would think that because that's the kind of person you are" - arguments against the person are used instead of addressing the evidence. That's more or less the textbook definition of an ad hominem attack.

To me, that's pretty much open hostility and factionalism. And that's what I would like to see us work against. If I am contributing to it, I want to understand how. Soloist has said some helpful things that I will respond to next.

In general, this is most prominent in the politics threads. Perhaps because the commentators and memes and Youtube videos we see around us are full of this. And I think it has gotten worse on MN at the same time that it has gotten worse in society around us.

I hope you realize that Heir's comment was made with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

[MaxPC]

This is an invite to the thread 'Relationship Works of the Flesh'. The fights that occur on MN are all what scripture calls works of the flesh. These fights are ego issues that are in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit.

If one disagrees that these are not works of the flesh/ego, then perhaps we can talk about what the scriptures mean in the relationship descriptions on what are works of the flesh.

Note, this text Gal 5:19-21 has a pretty serious consequence for us if we don't stop this behavior. This is not an issue of just trying to make MN less hostile but rather an area of sinning that can keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Very, very serious. To be baited into these fights could be risking our own salvation as this text indicate.

I previously said my last post on this thread might be my last one but this subject is so serious with it's eternal consequence I had to post this. We are in a war but it isn't to be with one another but rather with our flesh/ego.

Amen and well said! The Bible speaks about those who like to keep the pot stirred and the narcissistic and immature personalities who do so. Perhaps ignoring those are like this best so that we too don’t fall for this carnality.

[MaxPC]

This is an invite to the thread 'Relationship Works of the Flesh'. The fights that occur on MN are all what scripture calls works of the flesh. These fights are ego issues that are in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit.

If one disagrees that these are not works of the flesh/ego, then perhaps we can talk about what the scriptures mean in the relationship descriptions on what are works of the flesh.

Note, this text Gal 5:19-21 has a pretty serious consequence for us if we don't stop this behavior. This is not an issue of just trying to make MN less hostile but rather an area of sinning that can keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Very, very serious. To be baited into these fights could be risking our own salvation as this text indicate.

I previously said my last post on this thread might be my last one but this subject is so serious with it's eternal consequence I had to post this. We are in a war but it isn't to be with one another but rather with our flesh/ego.

Amen and well said! The Bible speaks about those who like to keep the pot stirred and the narcissistic and immature personalities who do so. Perhaps ignoring those are like this best so that we too don’t fall for this carnality.

Just in case some forgot to look up those Galatians 5 verses:

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Enmity, jealousy, strife, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, envy, will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I think the Bible is very clear in this regard. If you want to inherit the Kingdom do not argue; avoid strife; walk away from those behaviors that will condemn your immortal soul for eternity. Quite simple; quite succinct.

[PetrChelcicky]

Well, I have a problem with Galatians 5. And it is grounded in my study of sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf. (He was in the end a member of the British House of Lords, so he is perhaps not completely unknown in the Anglosphere.)
Dahrendorf argued that conflicts (for instance, of interests) are normal, and that our problem is rather conflict denial, conflict avoidance and conflict suppression. This is normally done by denouncing people who speak about the conflict and support one side of it, telling that they are just creating the conflict and calling them troublemakers.
Dahrendorf's father was, as a lawyer, involved in the early labour movement, and what Dahrendorf had in mind was particularly the (Christian) conservative habit to see labour movementers simply as troublemakers and hoping for a government which would stop the trouble (which led them to support National Socialism as the solution which would make all conflicts between employers and employees disappear).
Thus, in my eyes, "divisions" are a normal expression of existing conflicts and should NOT be avoided. We must not be hostile, but we should treat the existing differences and conflicts matter-of-factly.

[Neto]

Well, I have a problem with Galatians 5. And it is grounded in my study of sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf. (He was in the end a member of the British House of Lords, so he is perhaps not completely unknown in the Anglosphere.)
Dahrendorf argued that conflicts (for instance, of interests) are normal, and that our problem is rather conflict denial, conflict avoidance and conflict suppression. This is normally done by denouncing people who speak about the conflict and support one side of it, telling that they are just creating the conflict and calling them troublemakers.
Dahrendorf's father was, as a lawyer, involved in the early labour movement, and what Dahrendorf had in mind was particularly the (Christian) conservative habit to see labour movementers simply as troublemakers and hoping for a government which would stop the trouble (which led them to support National Socialism as the solution which would make all conflicts between employers and employees disappear).
Thus, in my eyes, "divisions" are a normal expression of existing conflicts and should NOT be avoided. We must not be hostile, but we should treat the existing differences and conflicts matter-of-factly.

This reminds me of two things. First, Paul & Barnabas, in their heated argument over John Mark. I think that Paul should have remembered that when he himself first returned to Jerusalem as a believer, Barnabas was the only person who would "touch him with a 7 cubit pole". And, remembered that he just was the kind of person who could take Mark in as in a mentoring relationship, and help him become the profitable servant of God he became.

Two, very often, in the congregational outreach efforts I've seen first hand, there are some underlying issues or disagreements involved in creating the willingness on the part of the departing group to, well, depart. I think that these things should be openly acknowledged, so that the two groups can separate in peace & mutual blessing. (Obviously, if there is heresy involved, then this is not possible.)