Anabaptist preferences around statutes of national leaders

[Southerner]

I don’t deliver rebukes to people I don’t know and have no relationship with.

JohnH, this is good info to know. TY

[JohnL]

...I say getting back to the Bible and staying focused on living the Bible’s teachings and letting God deal with other folks is the most sane way to keep our eyes on Jesus. You don’t have control over others. God didn’t give any man the power to judge others. Every man must judge himself only and seek the True Way in the Bible. Those Beatitudes are a really good place to start that.

I agree with this including the part about controlling others, which is why I am concerned about the gold statue celebrating type of Christians. I can't see their enthusiasm in any other light than power and control but all I can do is raise a voice of concern.

I can understand that concern and I’d be sharing if I thought they were actually Christians.What I see is a podcaster trying to cash in and build a following. What I see is an AI fake up to discredit the opposition. I’ll admit I haven’t been everywhere but I’ve seen enough of the world to know that sincere preachers don’t have time for daily podcasts. Even Billy Graham took breaks between his crusades. Billy Graham also met with national leaders one on one to share the good news. He didn’t stage “blessings” he preached Jesus and him crucified.
This guy in this article sounds like a fringe element trying to get national attention. I think the best response to that is to stop bringing attention to him. Instead we should just ignore him and bring attention to the Gospel. I personally think we’re running out of time to do that.

[JohnH]

This guy in this article sounds like a fringe element trying to get national attention. I think the best response to that is to stop bringing attention to him. Instead we should just ignore him and bring attention to the Gospel. I personally think we’re running out of time to do that.

Yep. I can't even find any evidence there's an actual church he's a pastor of that has meeting times. Their website only advertises how to be part of their 'live studio audience'. No service times.

[Ernie]

I generally avoid rebukes for people outside of my denomination for a variety of reasons.

Except for the constant rebuking here on MN?

I have delivered very few direct rebukes to a specific person here on MN. Otherwise. This is a discussion forum.

I disagree. I've been rebuked numerous times and so have many others. And no, it was not discussion.

[JohnH]

Except for the constant rebuking here on MN?

I have delivered very few direct rebukes to a specific person here on MN. Otherwise. This is a discussion forum.

I disagree. I've been rebuked numerous times and so have many others. And no, it was not discussion.

Disagreement is not a “rebuke”. I am talking about a 1:1 rebuke to somehow. I do not feel I’m in a position to deliver such a rebuke to Mark Burns in a biblical, respectful way that builds Jesus’ kingdom.

If I were, I’d probably focus on other things than some statue.

[Bootstrap]

I feel like you don’t like any pushback against certain opinions you hold, and feel frustrated when someone else comes in with solid facts and evidence. That’s not “telling imaginary stories”.

Likewise, quoting someone isn’t “putting words in their mouth”.

I agree, in both cases, especially when you quote someone with enough context that it's clear what they meant, asking questions of clarification if you aren't sure what they meant. These are both constructive things to do. And I don't think I object to posts that do these things - if I do, please point it out at the time.

It does mean that your view can’t predominant simply because you are good at rhetoric and at writing seemingly well reasoned arguments for things. On this particular topic, I’ve simply asked if people held Jimmy Carter’s statue to the same standard as this one, and there isn’t even any engagement on that topic. The topic is simply another “orange man bad” from people who don’t like a certain President, and then it’s agreement with me from people who do like a certain President.

I should add:

3. Defending your posts as reasonable and constructive in response to three people raising concerns about them, without addressing the concerns at all.

I disagree with your description of your posts - I don't think that's a fair description of what you did in that thread.

1. Tell stories, real or imagined, about what is wrong with the person who expresses a view, and insisting on making the topic about your accusations, not the topic.

That's what your first posts in the thread did. "Let's not discuss the topic, let's focus on accusing people who disagree with my view on the topic". Without any real discussion of the topic at all.

• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 93#p304493
• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 98#p304498
• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 04#p304504

This one starts to discuss the actual topic somewhat, in response to a thoughtful post from QuietlyListening. Then back to personal attacks against people who disagree with you:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 25#p304525

At this point, I had not posted anything. But most of the above posts seem toxic to me. They do not focus attention on the topic, they draw attention away to personal attacks of various kinds, or claims that people like you are the good people, or whatever. To me, that is hijacking a thread, making it hard to discuss the topic of the thread or to let others express themselves safely.

2. Put words into someone else's mouth, as though they had said it, mocking them for saying or something that you wrote, and insisting on discussing that instead of what they actually did say.

There are some really good examples of this at the end of the thread:

• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 91#p304791
• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 94#p304794

Also, "orange man bad" and "TDR" are clearly examples of this. It implies that the other person is less than rational, less than human, unable to think for themselves. And it rather implies that criticism of "He Who Must Not Be Criticized" should be treated differently than criticism of anyone else. Political sacred cows.

Instead of responding to what the other person actually said. Or clearly expressing your own view, as your own view, without barbs. You can always just not answer a question, or ask me to express my own views about something I said without putting words in my mouth, or express your own views.

That's what I normally think of as discussion.

[JohnH]

Also, "orange man bad" and "TDR" are clearly examples of this. It implies that the other person is less than rational, less than human, unable to think for themselves. And it rather implies that criticism of "He Who Must Not Be Criticized" should be treated differently than criticism of anyone else. Political sacred cows.

If people want to criticise Trump, there's a Politics forum for that.

If people want to generally criticise statues, I think we can discuss that with the topic being something other than Trump.

If you bring up a Trump statute, the agenda is clearly to talk about Trump.

Instead of responding to what the other person actually said. Or clearly expressing your own view, as your own view, without barbs. You can always just not answer a question, or ask me to express my own views about something I said without putting words in my mouth, or express your own views.

I would like the same thing; however, I've given up and don't foresee that actually happening (with regards to me) anytime soon. So I just accept the barbs.

I am aware that this forum is a very hostile place towards people who are not willing to take up a strict anti-Trump position. I can accept that too. However, I do think that's partisanship and will continue to call it out as such.

I don't think using MennoNet as a platform to express anti-Trump political views does much to build the kingdom of heaven. It would be amazing if we could talk about things with Trump being the centre of the universe, but that doesn't seem to be possible. After a few days go by, someone who doesn't like Trump will find an excuse to bring up Trump in a non-Politics thread, and this topic of a statue is no exception.

I did my best to try to keep redirecting the conversation to other statues, and ask sincerely what the participants' opinion was of those things. I did not even get a clear answer. If we want to talk in Current Events about statues from an Anabaptist perspective, I think it's pretty fair to discuss a Christian deacon going along with commission a statute of himself at the state capitol. That's a good thing for us to discuss and removes the partisanship from the equation.

Ultimately, if you just want a platform to complain that I'm not anti-Trump enough, congratulations: You have it, and you can continue to transform MennoNet into that. And I suppose if one has a system of morality that revolves around deciding how moral, good, ethical, etc. people are by the degree to which they are anti-Trump, I suppose that can be done too. I think that's a very, very poor basis.

[Ernie]

I have delivered very few direct rebukes to a specific person here on MN. Otherwise. This is a discussion forum.

I disagree. I've been rebuked numerous times and so have many others. And no, it was not discussion.

Disagreement is not a “rebuke”. I am talking about a 1:1 rebuke to somehow. I do not feel I’m in a position to deliver such a rebuke to Mark Burns in a biblical, respectful way that builds Jesus’ kingdom.

If I were, I’d probably focus on other things than some statue.

There have been many 1:1 rebukes by JohnH here on Mennonet. That is the topic I am replying to. I'm not talking about Mark Burns.

[ohio jones]

The first statute of a national leader mentioned in the Bible is that of Joseph imposing a 20% income tax on the Egyptians. This was after he bought up all the livestock and the land in exchange for food, basically making the people slaves to Pharaoh.

I would prefer that national leaders not make such rigorous statutes, though in times of emergency there might not be much choice.

If you bring up a Trump statute, the agenda is clearly to talk about Trump.

They are generally called executive orders, since statutory powers are reserved to Congress. I don't recall any discussion of them in the last few weeks, but obviously Politics would be the place to do so.

It would be amazing if we could talk about things with Trump being the centre of the universe, but that doesn't seem to be possible.

Amazing is not the word I would choose for that.

[Bootstrap]

Instead of responding to what the other person actually said. Or clearly expressing your own view, as your own view, without barbs. You can always just not answer a question, or ask me to express my own views about something I said without putting words in my mouth, or express your own views.

I would like the same thing; however, I've given up and don't foresee that actually happening (with regards to me) anytime soon. So I just accept the barbs.

Please do what I just did when you think I’m deflecting with barbs or accusations: point to specific recent posts.

I’m interested in discussing topics, not trading barbs. But without concrete examples, I can’t tell whether the criticism is accurate or how to correct it.

If I’m doing this unintentionally, I want to know. Vague accusations just raise the temperature without helping either of us communicate better.

I am aware that this forum is a very hostile place towards people who are not willing to take up a strict anti-Trump position. I can accept that too. However, I do think that's partisanship and will continue to call it out as such.

I don’t think disagreement with Trump or criticism of pro-Trump arguments amounts to hostility toward everyone who isn’t anti-Trump. That framing creates a persecution narrative that raises the temperature and makes discussion harder. I’d rather stay focused on the actual arguments and specific behaviors.