Can we make MN less hostile?

[Bootstrap]

It is often not what one says, but the WAY one says it. I have seen several working at saying things better. As a parent, I often correct my children (not saying people here are children, though some may act that way at times) and I have to make a conscious choice to affirm their good actions. I was just trying to do that here.

"What you focus on, you get more of."

If we focus on the negative, we will see it more and be part of it. If we focus on the positive, it does not mean the negative goes away, but we can see it in a balanced light. It is also much more mentally and emotionally healthy for us.

Validating the positive does not hide or ignore the negative, but it does help the one we converse with to hear our words more openly and not always take what we say in the most negative way. We all must remember to remove the log before we worry about another's splinter.

If my use of words did not convey this concept well enough, I apologize. I see other followers of Jesus as allies, even though I may disagree with them on issues. I see others who do not follow Jesus as potential allies. I was speaking from my perspective. If that word does not fit, please understand the principle I was trying to express and find the word that fits better for you.

I agree with this.

And I think this part should really make us think about how we consume the news and what we choose to promote to others:

"What you focus on, you get more of."

If we focus on the negative, we will see it more and be part of it. If we focus on the positive, it does not mean the negative goes away, but we can see it in a balanced light. It is also much more mentally and emotionally healthy for us.

I think most news sources are overly negative. Some are overtly hostile. Some are extremely careless with facts. And if we marinade in those, we tend to become like them.

I think this is a major reason for hostility on MN. We're just unconsciously becoming like the sources we spend time with.

[temporal1]

my mother used to counsel (6 of us) -
“be cautious about those who just tell you what you want to hear! - they may not care for you anywhere as sincerely as those who are willing to tell you what you don’t want to hear.” criticism can be important and valuable. so, while it pinches, try to learn from it. that criticizer may turn out to be your best friend. the person willing to take the risk.

It is often not what one says, but the WAY one says it.
I have seen several working at saying things better. As a parent, I often correct my children (not saying people here are children, though some may act that way at times) and I have to make a conscious choice to affirm their good actions. I was just trying to do that here.

"What you focus on, you get more of."

If we focus on the negative, we will see it more and be part of it. If we focus on the positive, it does not mean the negative goes away, but we can see it in a balanced light. It is also much more mentally and emotionally healthy for us.

Validating the positive does not hide or ignore the negative, but it does help the one we converse with to hear our words more openly and not always take what we say in the most negative way. We all must remember to remove the log before we worry about another's splinter.

If my use of words did not convey this concept well enough, I apologize. I see other followers of Jesus as allies, even though I may disagree with them on issues. I see others who do not follow Jesus as potential allies. I was speaking from my perspective. If that word does not fit, please understand the principle I was trying to express and find the word that fits better for you.

i “hearted” your post, Page 39, being confident in your good intent. you are consistent over years.

as often happens here, nett had an (unexpected to me) response, i was intrigued with his view, i believe sincere, also, informed and experienced. he often makes me think more, as you and others present often do. it’s not “Robert is wrong or less than,” therefore, “nett is right and greater than.” (Which, i believe the internet promotes this kind of limited narrow divisive thinking.) We’re capable of more+better.

i enjoy reading different views, it’s like puzzle solving, “what does this mean? what is the intent?” - members like PetrC and Franklin, coming across cultures, regions, even languages, “what is being said?”

i won’t say i’m good at it!! - i enjoy trying.

This is an interesting video.
At about 13 min, he describes a coffee shop encounter in which he “spoke unwanted truth” to a (hostile) young woman, expecting “nothing.” It was unpleasant. In awhile, she returned to him in tears to thank him for his courage+confidence to tell her the truth, then she shared her personal story. A teen pregnancy. Strangers. Chance meeting.

She begins with, “Well, i’m a feminist” ..

Dr Taylor Marshall / Archbishop Vigano: Is FDA buying baby organs? / 20min
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VasFVRVbFsA

i believe the Holy Spirit is responsible for causing his words to “hit their mark.” he can be happy he made the effort.
how much easier to not say anything, walk away, not bother.

[Valerie]

Love your non-allies. Bless those who persecute you. Live peaceably with all men. Make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. Are those things scriptural?

I realize those passages but I'm talking about respect? Can't that lead people to a false sense of understanding doctrine? As I be the early church writer's father's theologians they address these things with syrong protection over truth as did Jesus, I'm talking about people professing to be Christians

Valerie, you have posted some things that seem like error if not heresy to me. How would you prefer I respond going forward.

Be specific. Id appreciate knowing what I've posted that you consider heresy. Thank you. An answer. If someone is promoting heresy I don't expect respect for me or anyone else.

[temporal1]

i wrote:
.. This is an interesting video.
At about 13 min, he describes a coffee shop encounter in which he “spoke unwanted truth” to a (hostile) young woman, expecting “nothing.” It was unpleasant. In awhile, she returned to him in tears to thank him for his courage+confidence to tell her the truth, then she shared her personal story. A teen pregnancy. Strangers. Chance meeting.

She begins with, “Well, i’m a feminist” ..

Dr Taylor Marshall / Archbishop Vigano: Is FDA buying baby organs? / 20min
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VasFVRVbFsA

i believe the Holy Spirit is responsible for causing his words to “hit their mark.” he can be happy he made the effort.
how much easier to not say anything, walk away, not bother.

Because many do not view videos, i want to add, the part starting at about 13min is much like what Robert is saying ..

“get vocal,” “rebuke false understandings,” “defend life,” - - -
“be firm, kind, loving,” “make a defense for the hope that’s within us.”

[Valerie]

Love your non-allies. Bless those who persecute you. Live peaceably with all men. Make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. Are those things scriptural?

I realize those passages but I'm talking about respect? Can't that lead people to a false sense of understanding doctrine? As I be the early church writer's father's theologians they address these things with syrong protection over truth as did Jesus, I'm talking about people professing to be Christians

If I regard respect more as admiration then I think a better word might be to be courteous to people with beliefs I disagree with. I believe it possible to explain what we believe is truth and do it in a gentle and peaceful way. As Paul asked the Corinthians - 'What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness ?' I think we all want the latter.

I disagree with how the 'church fathers' used the word 'anathema' as a curse to those who didn't agree with their beliefs/doctrines. Perhaps if they were without sin themselves they could respond as Jesus did to the Pharisees at times but none of us are without sin. Additionally, none of us 'see through a glass clearly' and we have differing convictions regarding different topics.

When I think of the characteristic of the Spirit's fruit called 'gentleness' I think of being courteous. We can express strong convictions on our beliefs but try to do it in a gentle way that promotes peace and understanding.

If I take the time to review a post before I submit it considering if it is courteous, then I believe the chance of it being considered goes up. With that said, I fail to do that too often and offend in my sharing. I will keep working on it. None of us are or will know perfect truth about everything. Humbleness is also a big part in how we respond to beliefs we disagree with.

Anyway, if anyone feels offended in any of my posts, please PM me and we can work it out and I can learn how to improve.

I think we jave to put ourselves in the sandals of the early Church who Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into and vouchsafed 'The Church" as guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church at that time, was said to be "The pillar & ground of the Truth". The enormous responsibility to protect it against heresy is nothing like we face today because at this point there are thousands of sex but that was not the case the first 1500 years of Christianity. I don't think any denomination since the reformation. Claims itself to be infallible. But of course from ones own denomination, error & heresy could be in the eye of the beholder

Regarding anathema:

https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Di ... y/Anathema

[temporal1]

I noticed there are a couple who are working at their tone and way they are posting. This is what will help bring down the hostility. Talking to each other as allies instead of adversaries. I hope it gets noticed by others and it catches on.

Just remember we treat others because of who we are and Who is in us, not as a response to how they are treating us.

I cannot consider pro-abortion people allies. That's just a line too far for me.

nett,
are you saying you could not accept pro-abortion people as brothers/sisters in Christ?

[Robert]

I noticed there are a couple who are working at their tone and way they are posting. This is what will help bring down the hostility. Talking to each other as allies instead of adversaries. I hope it gets noticed by others and it catches on.

Just remember we treat others because of who we are and Who is in us, not as a response to how they are treating us.

I cannot consider pro-abortion people allies. That's just a line too far for me.

nett,
are you saying you could not accept pro-abortion people as brothers/sisters in Christ?

Lets move that discussion to another thread.

[Sudsy]

I realize those passages but I'm talking about respect? Can't that lead people to a false sense of understanding doctrine? As I be the early church writer's father's theologians they address these things with syrong protection over truth as did Jesus, I'm talking about people professing to be Christians

If I regard respect more as admiration then I think a better word might be to be courteous to people with beliefs I disagree with. I believe it possible to explain what we believe is truth and do it in a gentle and peaceful way. As Paul asked the Corinthians - 'What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness ?' I think we all want the latter.

I disagree with how the 'church fathers' used the word 'anathema' as a curse to those who didn't agree with their beliefs/doctrines. Perhaps if they were without sin themselves they could respond as Jesus did to the Pharisees at times but none of us are without sin. Additionally, none of us 'see through a glass clearly' and we have differing convictions regarding different topics.

When I think of the characteristic of the Spirit's fruit called 'gentleness' I think of being courteous. We can express strong convictions on our beliefs but try to do it in a gentle way that promotes peace and understanding.

If I take the time to review a post before I submit it considering if it is courteous, then I believe the chance of it being considered goes up. With that said, I fail to do that too often and offend in my sharing. I will keep working on it. None of us are or will know perfect truth about everything. Humbleness is also a big part in how we respond to beliefs we disagree with.

Anyway, if anyone feels offended in any of my posts, please PM me and we can work it out and I can learn how to improve.

I think we jave to put ourselves in the sandals of the early Church who Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into and vouchsafed 'The Church" as guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church at that time, was said to be "The pillar & ground of the Truth". The enormous responsibility to protect it against heresy is nothing like we face today because at this point there are thousands of sex but that was not the case the first 1500 years of Christianity. I don't think any denomination since the reformation. Claims itself to be infallible. But of course from ones own denomination, error & heresy could be in the eye of the beholder

Regarding anathema:

https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Di ... y/Anathema

My understanding of anathema could be flawed as I have understood the word in the sense of being dammed to hell. It would appear it is also used as excommunication. What I resist is taking the view that views such as the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism, certain modes of water baptism, pro abortion, what Christians wear, speaking in tongues to be saved, D&R folks, etc, and taking any hateful attitude towards a professing Christian who does not believe as I do are things I will condemn them as sinners bound for hell.

Here is a link that I found interesting -

https://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/06/03/le ... -it-means/

[ohio jones]

because at this point there are thousands of sex

Never thought you'd be one to argue there are more than two.

[MaxPC]

Pelosi, et al. were mentioned which brings up a salient aspect: audience, (to whom the comments are addressed). With the continued defiance of Church teaching on the part of Pelosi and other politicians who claim to be Catholic, the admonishment has been increasingly terse and less diplomatic from other Catholics. Remember, these politicians have been using their status for decades to be elected while causing scandal to other Catholics. These politicians refuse to listen because their political ambitions take a greater priority in their personal lives than their faith walk. In summary, these are words from Catholics to Catholics in sin refusing to repent.

I would hazard to observe I have seen a parallel here on MN and previously on MD. Mennonites speak to other Mennonites in a similar pattern as it involves the individual's faith walk.

Then there are the conversations between nonMennonites who may have been raised Mennonite but no longer believe; and nonMennonites from other faith traditions; etc.

Another variable: those who bang the same political tambourine with very nearly every topic; posting dubious graphs incessantly; lashing out at others who have provided facts that disprove the claims of their favorite political party; etc. With those who refuse to listen and who are consistently hostile, Jesus tells us to "shake the dust from your feet" and walk away (Luke 9:5, Matthew 10:14). Hence I block the posts of those who engage in these hostile and perseverative behaviors.

As always, YMMV.

Again re Audience: I forgot to mention the personalities who seek attention through argument. Likewise those who argue for entertainment. Both personality types seek out those who will react to their provocations. "Trolling" is a well-documented behavior on the internet.