The Walled Garden approach

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

This is just how it seems from my perspective Joshua. I meant it as constructive criticism. I think having a general religious debate board would be a good thing for the forum, and would probably make your job easier.

Chris

Hmmm, interesting points. But isn't this place already the "UN" of religious forums?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Hmmm, interesting points. But isn't this place already the "UN" of religious forums?

Well, here's the thing: It's obvious what is and isn't fellowship oriented material, but there are a thousand shades of grey involved with what constitutes "respect" for a person's belief system. How do you know where to draw the line? On an open debate forum the only line to draw is where things get personal. Personal insults are verboten, anything else goes. You all have a nice little forum going here, but look at where the action is: Christianity. People need a place where they can say whatever they want without their thread being exiled, or seeded to a dead board because they stepped in someone's sacred cow pie.

What you have now is this constant struggle to define who is and isn't a "Christian". If you had clearly marked fellowship and debate areas you wouldn't have that problem.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, here's the thing: It's obvious what is and isn't fellowship oriented material, but there are a thousand shades of grey involved with what constitutes "respect" for a person's belief system. How do you know where to draw the line? On an open debate forum the only line to draw is where things get personal. Personal insults are verboten, anything else goes. You all have a nice little forum going here, but look at where the action is: Christianity. People need a place where they can say whatever they want without their thread being exiled, or seeded to a dead board because they stepped in someone's sacred cow pie.

What you have now is this constant struggle to define who is and isn't a "Christian". If you had clearly marked fellowship and debate areas you wouldn't have that problem.

Chris

Chris, if you consider the Christianity board to be an area of the garden where the scriptures are considered to be sacred (as per 2 Tim 3:10-17), as part of the belief system, then you will have a better idea of when you are "stepping in someone's sacred cow pie" on that board.

[I, Brian]

We had a number of complaints a while back that non-Christians were entering the Christianity board and pushing very unChristian views on the Christian members.

I was petitioned to help step in and ensure that discussions stayed on the topic of Christian beliefs and opinions, rather than outright discussions to reject Christianity.

The problem then invited is that it was difficult to include some of the esoteric and liberal elements without being seen to rock the boat again on the Christianity board, so specialist areas were set up to specifically cater for these discussions.

I have to admit, I'm not entirely happy with the current arrangement, but the problem is one of finding a "best fit" approach which can be inclusive, without making the mainstream and traditionalist viewpoints feel unwelcome.

As with all things, there's an attempt to apply balance on the boards, and at present I think there's far less moderating of what is and isn't suitable for the Christianity board especially - partly because it's already a much more active discussion area, but also because the mainstream view remains the sum viewpoint even with less traditional views factored in.

At the end of the day, if you want to post something on the Christianity board, feel free to post it. If there are complaints, then maybe it would have to reconsider its location.

Overall, there's always been an attempt to cover critical issues in the comparative area, simply so that no belief or faith here can feel particularly victimised.

Hope that helps.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, here's the thing: It's obvious what is and isn't fellowship oriented material, but there are a thousand shades of grey involved with what constitutes "respect" for a person's belief system. How do you know where to draw the line? On an open debate forum the only line to draw is where things get personal. Personal insults are verboten, anything else goes. You all have a nice little forum going here, but look at where the action is: Christianity. People need a place where they can say whatever they want without their thread being exiled, or seeded to a dead board because they stepped in someone's sacred cow pie.

What you have now is this constant struggle to define who is and isn't a "Christian". If you had clearly marked fellowship and debate areas you wouldn't have that problem.

Chris

Now that is an interesting thought. The "action" is in the Christianity forum...now why do you suppose that is?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Now that is an interesting thought. The "action" is in the Christianity forum...now why do you suppose that is?

There is a large Western audience for CR, and Christianity is a predominantly Western religion. What I mean, of course, is that the predominant religion OF the West ... is Christianity. That's why.

Also, there is plenty of noise, but when it comes down to brass tacks ... I'm not sure if the hoopla of traffic on a discussion forum constitutes "action."

The discussion, even debate, is not surprising, as long as claims continue to issue forth that so-and-so speaks for God, or has some special grace with the powers that be. No matter what person or religion claims this, it is bound to provoke a reaction - if not incite a riot.

taijasa

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

We had a number of complaints a while back that non-Christians were entering the Christianity board and pushing very unChristian views on the Christian members.

I was petitioned to help step in and ensure that discussions stayed on the topic of Christian beliefs and opinions, rather than outright discussions to reject Christianity.

The problem then invited is that it was difficult to include some of the esoteric and liberal elements without being seen to rock the boat again on the Christianity board, so specialist areas were set up to specifically cater for these discussions.

I have to admit, I'm not entirely happy with the current arrangement, but the problem is one of finding a "best fit" approach which can be inclusive, without making the mainstream and traditionalist viewpoints feel unwelcome.

As with all things, there's an attempt to apply balance on the boards, and at present I think there's far less moderating of what is and isn't suitable for the Christianity board especially - partly because it's already a much more active discussion area, but also because the mainstream view remains the sum viewpoint even with less traditional views factored in.

At the end of the day, if you want to post something on the Christianity board, feel free to post it. If there are complaints, then maybe it would have to reconsider its location.

Overall, there's always been an attempt to cover critical issues in the comparative area, simply so that no belief or faith here can feel particularly victimised.

Hope that helps.

Brian,

What I would like you to consider is having a Christian Debate board as one of the sub-forums of Abrahamic Religions. I think this would solve the problem.

Chris

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Brian,

What I would like you to consider is having a Christian Debate board as one of the sub-forums of Abrahamic Religions. I think this would solve the problem.

Chris

Hear Hear! No tag line is really even necessary if you do that. Not that I think I know your mind that well, Brian, but if I can anticipate worth a damn, I might guess that your reservation - and rightly placed - is against allowing CR, even a portion of CR, to become a "free-for-all."

Other boards exist in abundance, where the discussion is either not moderated, or amounts to stfu, we don't like your kind around here. Hmmm ... I don't hear this as the official response at CR, not on any boards.

What I do hear, see, witness - and have just posted as much (on that board, since it is in context) - is that there is a status quo ... and although no one can deny that this changes and morphs over time, some individuals will stop at no end to preserve a current iteration.

What irony, that today's understandings have evolved only through 2,000 years of discussion, debate, editing, interpreting, revising and via constant ecclesiastical controvery ...

Could it be, that what is at stake, is more than some folks are ready, willing or feel comfortable to admit? Could it be that there is perhaps, a tension which underlies and automatically characterizes a certain thread of religious discussion, or a certain type of questioning of authority?

One can approach this psychologically, sociologically, rather practically as a forum admin or mod (a necessary perspective, regardless) ... yet also spiritually, religiously, or even in terms of the interpersonal energies involved (both material and spiritual), if we want to think even quasi-esoterically, for a moment. Efficient solution, or a practical approach, may be what is called for, but I hope we are also taking notes from a number of other perspectives. I think those perspectives matter.

Why, for example, do we not see this happen on the Hinduism boards, or on Buddhism? These are ancient religions. They have many adherents. The reply that CR simply has a larger Western audience ... may be a good enough answer. I'm just not sure it's the only factor.

Indeed, Q - Why all the action? Hmmm ...

That is not a directed hmmmm ....

I think it is a question worth answering, even if - it may be rhetorical.

In Love and Light,

andrew/taijasi

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

...Indeed, Q - Why all the action? Hmmm ...

That is not a directed hmmmm ....

I think it is a question worth answering, even if - it may be rhetorical.

In Love and Light,

andrew/taijasi

I see. The world according to ? is in question. So, correct me if I am mistaken, but if certain persons were gone from this place, CR would be the better for it? And that is according to you? Wow, that truly is the first time in my life that I have seen a caste/class system mentality in action.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I see. The world according to ? is in question. So, correct me if I am mistaken, but if certain persons were gone from this place, CR would be the better for it? And that is according to you? Wow, that truly is the first time in my life that I have seen a caste/class system mentality in action.

Without tension, there is no growth. That goes both ways. My own belief, is that even "evil," constitutes part of this tension!!!

However, no one ... at CR, fits this definition. Occasionally, there is tension. As often as tension is created by the old ideals resisting the new energies, there are the new energies ... which can overstep their bounds, and the resistance is entirely natural!

This is how free will continues to evolve. I have no interest whatsoever in the old disputes (in maintaining them, that is) which suggest that we have an all-or-nothing, once-and-for-all shot at "Salvation." Most people here, at CR, would probably agree with that statement - if reservedly.

The reservation is healthy. I am often of accused of relativism, or wanting to level the playing field entirely. But neither of these is what I suggest. What I do say, is that this is one world. One set of rules, applied to all. At CR, it would make little sense to say, this is how things are "everywhere else," when as soon as you cross this line, the rules change. If anything, and this is what I like most about CR, such rules do apply - or this scenario is in place - but only relative to the kind of crap that goes on at many, if not most, other religious forums.

I haven't visited hundred, but dozens, perhaps. As SOON as you say, "You're not welcome," it really doesn't matter who the you was. Unless the waves being created are/were big enough to cause significant erosion, or wash the place away ... that's not necessary. I don't mind knowing that people find some of my presentations challenging, but I have yet to be asked to leave.

If I am asked, and if were by enough people, or if I felt strongly that even one person who made a case for me was right, I'd probably do so. The greatest good, for the greatest number ... is the Highest Principle I know, when it comes to things like this.

Does that mean I shouldn't post, simply because some of my ideas might be "unpopular" with some? I don't think so. Then again, I could be wrong!

Often, I must ask myself, is this wise, is it good, is it helpful, is it true ... and even, is it absolutely necessary. If I were the perfect example, I wouldn't need to bother. I wouldn't need to be here, and I wouldn't need to post.

How many sets of rules are there, though? How many should there be?

If CR evolves into the kind of place where there are "free speech zones" versus "protected areas," then you might find that I leave soon enough, of my own accord. Having forums where Fellowship is stressed, and where a request is worded - diplomatically yet clearly - that folks not "stir up the locals" too much, doesn't seem out of order. Opening another area for Friendly debate, if the Friendly part can truly and honestly be preserved - and if such a board can be self-policed enough to keep all hell from breaking loose ... doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

I'm not sure what Brian thinks, but I was simply guessing that he probably doesn't want to see WWIII erupt at CR, as it routinely does at a lot of other forums, just for the sake of "I'll say whatever the hell I want to say."

To be fair, I might say that there are a lot of arguments between Islam and Christianity, as if the old Crusade karma was not quite yet exhausted. By no means is it just the mainstream Christian forums where disputes arise, or questions of interpretation develop. But why can't there be regular, philosophical or scholarly discussions of such things as apocryphal texts, or non-conventional slants on familiar theological problems ... even stuff like cosmology, soteriology, or whatever seems popular?

In fact, such discussion do take place. But there is an ebb and a flow. Imho, there has been quite a bit of reaction recently, and my extremely limited (sic) understanding of astrology gives me a clue as to why this is. Then again, gee, could the current energies/tension surrounding the political controversies here in America have something to do with this?

I dunno. Again, I sometimes look to the stars, even I but poorly understand them, for indications. Even some of my closest friends still tell me, "this is just the same-old, same-old, history repeating itself." I both agree, and disagree. I at least hope they're wrong. Have we progressed that little, in 2000 years? In 10,000???

Rambling now,

andrew/taijasi

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Without tension, there is no growth. That goes both ways. My own belief, is that even "evil," constitutes part of this tension!!!

However, no one ... at CR, fits this definition. Occasionally, there is tension. As often as tension is created by the old ideals resisting the new energies, there are the new energies ... which can overstep their bounds, and the resistance is entirely natural!

This is how free will continues to evolve. I have no interest whatsoever in the old disputes (in maintaining them, that is) which suggest that we have an all-or-nothing, once-and-for-all shot at "Salvation." Most people here, at CR, would probably agree with that statement - if reservedly.

The reservation is healthy. I am often of accused of relativism, or wanting to level the playing field entirely. But neither of these is what I suggest. What I do say, is that this is one world. One set of rules, applied to all. At CR, it would make little sense to say, this is how things are "everywhere else," when as soon as you cross this line, the rules change. If anything, and this is what I like most about CR, such rules do apply - or this scenario is in place - but only relative to the kind of crap that goes on at many, if not most, other religious forums.

I haven't visited hundred, but dozens, perhaps. As SOON as you say, "You're not welcome," it really doesn't matter who the you was. Unless the waves being created are/were big enough to cause significant erosion, or wash the place away ... that's not necessary. I don't mind knowing that people find some of my presentations challenging, but I have yet to be asked to leave.

If I am asked, and if were by enough people, or if I felt strongly that even one person who made a case for me was right, I'd probably do so. The greatest good, for the greatest number ... is the Highest Principle I know, when it comes to things like this.

Does that mean I shouldn't post, simply because some of my ideas might be "unpopular" with some? I don't think so. Then again, I could be wrong!

Often, I must ask myself, is this wise, is it good, is it helpful, is it true ... and even, is it absolutely necessary. If I were the perfect example, I wouldn't need to bother. I wouldn't need to be here, and I wouldn't need to post.

How many sets of rules are there, though? How many should there be?

If CR evolves into the kind of place where there are "free speech zones" versus "protected areas," then you might find that I leave soon enough, of my own accord. Having forums where Fellowship is stressed, and where a request is worded - diplomatically yet clearly - that folks not "stir up the locals" too much, doesn't seem out of order. Opening another area for Friendly debate, if the Friendly part can truly and honestly be preserved - and if such a board can be self-policed enough to keep all hell from breaking loose ... doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

I'm not sure what Brian thinks, but I was simply guessing that he probably doesn't want to see WWIII erupt at CR, as it routinely does at a lot of other forums, just for the sake of "I'll say whatever the hell I want to say."

To be fair, I might say that there are a lot of arguments between Islam and Christianity, as if the old Crusade karma was not quite yet exhausted. By no means is it just the mainstream Christian forums where disputes arise, or questions of interpretation develop. But why can't there be regular, philosophical or scholarly discussions of such things as apocryphal texts, or non-conventional slants on familiar theological problems ... even stuff like cosmology, soteriology, or whatever seems popular?

In fact, such discussion do take place. But there is an ebb and a flow. Imho, there has been quite a bit of reaction recently, and my extremely limited (sic) understanding of astrology gives me a clue as to why this is. Then again, gee, could the current energies/tension surrounding the political controversies here in America have something to do with this?

I dunno. Again, I sometimes look to the stars, even I but poorly understand them, for indications. Even some of my closest friends still tell me, "this is just the same-old, same-old, history repeating itself." I both agree, and disagree. I at least hope they're wrong. Have we progressed that little, in 2000 years? In 10,000???

Rambling now,

andrew/taijasi

Nothing is created nor destroyed...only changed. Nothing is new under the sun, except to the perceiver. You seem to want the perceiver to consider life, as you see it...yet there are those who do not wish to see life as you see it. But you insist...to the point of invading their comfort zone (their space). You also wish to correct them in their erroneous attitude, in order to fit your concept of a perfect world...

That is called opression, and the beginnings of persecution.

This "liberal" view point is all fine and good, until one stands up and says NO, to you.

That is why there is a "walled garden approach" here at CR. It backs up those that say NO, to you.

Nothing personal, just not another's way of thought.

Vivez et laissez vivant...isn't that the motto of the day?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Nothing is created nor destroyed...only changed. Nothing is new under the sun, except to the perceiver. You seem to want the perceiver to consider life, as you see it...yet there are those who do not wish to see life as you see it. But you insist...to the point of invading their comfort zone (their space). You also wish to correct them in their erroneous attitude, in order to fit your concept of a perfect world...

That is called opression, and the beginnings of persecution.

This "liberal" view point is all fine and good, until one stands up and says NO, to you.

That is why there is a "walled garden approach" here at CR. It backs up those that say NO, to you.

Nothing personal, just not another's way of thought.

Vivez et laissez vivant...isn't that the motto of the day?

In simple terms, Q, it translates to "get out of the Christian forum, we don't like your kind here."

Let me tell you a story, Q. You are the story man around here, and I seldom tell tales, but I'll share one with you now. It's relevant.

My childhood church here in Greensboro is called Lutheran Church of the Resurrection. I have fond memories of ~13 years attending that chuch. Mostly postive, and yet that is an understatement. Some of our family friends, people who have known me for 34 years, attended this church with us.

And the pastor? The one I know best, for quite a good span of years, was - and I'm sure still is - one of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever met. Yes, I normally reserve one of these words for womenfolk, but I cannot help but use it. What other word would convey this quality, which I always experienced as a positivity, and a Goodness, that never failed to evoke the Best - from the Pastor's friends, his congregation, his flock?

Lutheran Church of the Resurrection was, and is, a very small church, but it always had a certain character. This, as is often the case in congregations and service organizations, could be described as more than the sum - of the constituent members. The church was a living organism, and it was there that I first experienced Christ's Love and His Light.

Yes, it is true that by about age 12 or 13, I was more content on many Sunday mornings to lay in bed ... such that I can't say I participated as fully in the Sunday School classes for those last couple years as I might have. But this was an OPEN-minded congregation, Q, and these were NICE people.

I don't doubt that some had minor differences of opinion, and in the adult Sunday School classes, I'm sure there were interesting discussions.

The church did its share of charity work, supporting Laotian refugees, and adopting more than one Laotian family over the course of the years, welcoming these people into the congregation, and assisting them as much as possible with the difficult transition to this country, and its foreign culture.

I remember some of these children by name, Ku, if only because the Sunday School teacher could only seem to call him cow ... but I also remember the parents, who were quite curious to me, being rather petite. I love these people, as I loved ALL the members of the LCR congregation.

And I still do, Q. I love them, 20 years later, even if I am out of touch with most of them, and will never see them again in this lifetime. My fond memories of VBS - Vacation Bible School - along with most of these people, are somewhat buried these days. And some of that is natural, and even good. Sometimes I do remember.

Unfortunately, what sticks with me right along with my fond memories, and love for this period of my religious life ... are some events that weren't so pleasant.

Suffice it to say, that a very nice, pleasant Scottish family was unwelcomed from the LCR family - all at the behest of an individual whose name I can recall to the day. A gruff-looking fella, yet never before had I even heard of this kind of thing happening ... certainly not to an entire family, and from someone who clearly had no business telling them off.

I recall asking my parents, What happened? And though I was but 13 or 14, my parents were always quite candid, and as open with me as was possible. Why this individual felt that this Scottish family was no longer welcome at our church, I will never know. NO ONE knew, that I'm aware of.

But I lost many, many friends because of this. Some of whom I've never seen again, while a handful of families did move on to the same church here in Greensboro, NC - a larger Lutheran church which my parents attend to this day. I enjoy the Christmas Eve service with them, which I make it a point to attend.

What is it, Q, do you suppose, that prompts one individual to step in, and make such an unwelcoming un-invitation? I do recollect that all we found out, was that the unpleasant experience for this family was something like, "We don't like your kind around here. LEAVE."

Hmmm. Do you suppose the father of the family might have said something in a church council meeting that the offending party didn't agree with?

Perhaps his beliefs didn't suit the status quo. Perhaps he wore his tie crooked.

Q, I don't know. But I do know, that this family was asked to LEAVE.

And they did. And we did. And that little church congregation fell apart.

In it's place, there are a bunch of evangelicals ... and although the building remains, the church does not.

So let's see ... oppression, persecution? In the name of religion?

Yes, I know what these are. I know them, this time around, from an early enough age ... and it disgusts me.

I know the attitude, I know the mentality, and yes, in this case ... I think my friend is right. History repeats itself.

We want a member's only club, and so long as people are willing to seat themselves in the Amen Corner, all is well. That is what your french means to me.

There are others, in power these days, who are getting away with this kind of thing, and anyone who dares to differ, or disagree, is now a terrorist, a traitor, unpatriotic, and unwelcome.

We have a choice - as to whether we will reproduce this kind of energy, and energize such ideas as "You're not welcome here."

At least you're clear about it. You make your own Faith, your own point of view quite clear ... and you have no problem, as do others, posting that on ANY forum which you choose. You do not hesitate, to state this whenever, wherever, and however it may please you.

Strange, isn't it, that if I simply make the point, on the Christian board, that there is an astronomical, astrological underpinning ... to such ideas as the ICHTHYS, as Aquarius (aka, New Age), the Promised Lamb, and the golden calf, rather than even discuss it, which I found that even the most conservative group here at CR were & are willing to do ... strange, that for you, this is viewed as "an attack," and "oppression ... the beginnings of persecution."

Oppression, my brother, is when we are told what we may say, when and where we may say it, what we may believe, and HOW ... and when the "Free Speech Zone" grows smaller and smaller, day by day, our every ALIENable right is gradually divorced from us ... and not even a civil discussion can go forth, if it does not meet with the SANCTIONED APPROVAL of THE AUTHORITY in question.

And persecution? How about being told, You're not welcome here - we don't like your kind, i.e., we don't like what you believe.

It's not that my rude awakening as a kid was a one-time deal. You see, it hasn't stopped since. I see it, I sense it, every day. And I try, as best I am able, to NOT be on the offensive end.

Yet when the majority - mob rules, dear one - can push the voice of dissent, or in this case, SIMPLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, right on out the door? Ah yes. THIS I know well. The AMEN Corner ... makes its stand.

amen brother, and I'll see ya ...

-andrew

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by taijasi

The discussion, even debate, is not surprising, as long as claims continue to issue forth that so-and-so speaks for God, or has some special grace with the powers that be. No matter what person or religion claims this, it is bound to provoke a reaction - if not incite a riot.

Originally Posted by taijasi

I am convinced, we will no longer need to keep making distinctions between our own Highest (or most Spiritual) nature, and God's. They are one and the same, imo and findings. Which means that God is then the Eldest among Brethren, and truly - an older Brother ... not a "parent" at all, except in the sense of a Divine Steward, and one who stands far ahead of us on the Evolutionary path.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...on-4816-2.html

Originally Posted by taijasi

What disturbs me, however, is that the Son of God would deceive us this way. You know, the proverbial carrot at the end of the stick trick. Sure, it'll get us closer to peace and happiness and harmony if we all strive to be righteous ... but since we can never attain or accomplish what The Master Himself has asked us to do, why should we bother? Just to make him happy? To prevent the incurring of so-called "divine wrath" (a fiction if ever there was one!)? Just why exactly is it again that we have been asked to be godlike, since we can never be God?

(emphasis mine, -jt3)

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ns-4790-2.html

Ahem...what was that about irony???

[Quahom1]

Wow. I am sorry Taijasi, that I anger you so. I'm not certain if it is personal or if it is the system (with my face on it). But I will not change, ever. I will carry out the law. That is one thing you can depend on. Surely that must count for something in your estimation of me. I am sorry that you and I can't see eye to eye.

However, rest assure, I and my associates have you in mind (in a protective way), while we carryout our objectives.

Read that anyway you wish my friend, "it is all true".

v/r

Joshua

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Brian,

What I would like you to consider is having a Christian Debate board as one of the sub-forums of Abrahamic Religions. I think this would solve the problem.

Chris

Ideally, the Christian board will soon be able to take all such discussion/debate (same for other faith boards). Originally we'd look to move threads that may be construed as disruptive - pre-empt complaints - now it's the case of trying to allow it run on its own steam, and only act if there are any complaints. Hope that helps.