The Walled Garden approach

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
The Walled Garden approach to CR is intended to be a channel for discussion - to keep discussions focused on specific topic areas, and the opinions of the people who hold faith in these areas to be particularly respected.

It doesn't mean that people may necessarily agree with every opinion suggested, but I would like to encourage discussion to be constructive where possible, rather than ugly anti-faith threads spring up.

Something I'd like to make clear is that I don't envisage, nor with to encourage, any kind of view that the Walled Garden approach is intended to set up barriers between members of CR.

I think of the garden as like separated by small wooden fences - easy to climb over, but sufficient to help keep the different fruits separated by distinction. The plums grow next to the apples, the apples next to the peaches, and the fences are not built to stop the branches touching.

Some people prefer to sit under the apple trees, and some under the plum trees, and I'm happy to accomodate that. Sometimes people wish to sit themselves down under different trees for conversation, and I am happy to encourage that also.

I simply ask that the apple-tree sitters don't tell the plum-tree sitters are wrong by virtue of sitting under a plum tree, and vice versa. :)

I appreciate that sometimes the concept of the Walled Garden approach at CR may cause confusion, but I'm happy to try and clear up any misunderstandings.

Something I would absolutely wish to avoid is that the vary fragmentation and animosity between different groups of faiths, even within faiths, should be given any ground to grow and be encouraged to spread around CR.

The diversity of CR is our strength - the fact that so many people of so many faiths can be in the same community, discussing often very contentious ideas and ideals, is where our success, present and future, can only lay.

It would be very sad indeed if CR became too much a reflection of the divisions and antagonism we see in the real world.
 
Didn't realize you had a "virtual" green thumb...;)

Well put.

v/r

Q
 
Hi, Peace--

Quite an article there, Brian. I appreciate it. I have my favorite trees, of course, but I enjoy being able to sit under different ones at times. Sometimes I must pay close attention, so as not to deplete the fruits of any.:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Okay, let me see if I have this straight, we hafta keep the fruits and the nuts from getting together because they..... no, thats not it. We shouldn't be fruity..nah...ok ok I got it ....uhhh, nope false alarm..... Nuttin honey....:D


Brian, I think the walled garden approach is just fine, I think that should a discussion on the finer points within a religion be discussed it would be inappropriate to begin a debate over the very tenents of that religion. The Christian forum should be for Christians to debate or discuss their beliefs, approach to scripture, without harm from outside.

peace
Mark
 
I've been in a free for all garden where anyone and everyone was likely to get basted in manure. So if the walls can stop the manuring, I'm all in favour.

Snoopy (cleaned up now).
 
Well, I'm trying to make sure the walls aren't too rigid. I think of them more as trellises between discussion areas. :)

But hopefully no room for manure. Or not much. :)
 
When it "stinks" it is manure, but when it does not, it is "fertilizer". lol
 
Quahom1 said:
When it "stinks" it is manure, but when it does not, it is "fertilizer". lol

This reminds me of what Bess Truman said in an interview once about the use of the word "manure" by her late husband Harry who was U.S. President at the close of WWII. The interviewer asker her if it bothered her that President Truman used this word when he was commenting upon the political manipulations and judgements of opponents.

Mrs. Truman said, "It took me twenty five years to get him to use the word 'manure' instead of that other one."

flow....:p
 
I said:
Well, I'm trying to make sure the walls aren't too rigid. I think of them more as trellises between discussion areas. :)

A sort of gentle aparthied?

The walled gardens are essentially a first class lounge for the comfort of a select few. The rest of us fly coach.

Chris
 
No - more like the gardens are more easily traversed, whichever area you feel more comfortable with. :)

I'm trying to encourage more fluidity and less of a "hands-on" approach. Those "walls" are quite virtual. :)
 
Something I have noticed about the walled gardens is that each one has a gate. One key fits all the locks on these gates. The inscription on this key is "Respect". Most of us can use this key if we really want to. I know that when I am not sure what is welcome in a particular garden, then sometimes I don't go in right away, but I do sit in the trees whose branches hang over the walls and just try and learn about that garden. I mess up sometimes, but when I show my key, I am almost always forgiven. The freedom to move about in any universe is a beautiful thing. ;)

InPeace,
InLove
 
I think that the walled gardens work nicely for everything besides Christianity. What bothers me is the Christianity board. If it's going to be strictly a fellowship board that's fine, but there's no corresponding debate board. And then there's the silliness of having esoteric Christianity lumped in with neo Paganism, magic, witchcraft and etc., and liberal Christianity is a sub forum of Belief and Spirituality, which is described as a place for thinking outside of belief systems. Any thread which progresses past pitching softballs at the "Christians" on their board gets whisked away to no telling where. It might wind up on Comparative, or B&S, or esoteric...you just never know.

I think if posters had one well marked place to go debate Christianity it would take the pressure off the fellowship board so it can be the coffee clutch lounge that everyone seems to want. And it would be a convenient place to send argumentative stuff so that interesting debates could happen instead of good stuff getting lost because it's scattered all over the place willy nilly at the mod's whim.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I think that the walled gardens work nicely for everything besides Christianity. What bothers me is the Christianity board. If it's going to be strictly a fellowship board that's fine, but there's no corresponding debate board. And then there's the silliness of having esoteric Christianity lumped in with neo Paganism, magic, witchcraft and etc., and liberal Christianity is a sub forum of Belief and Spirituality, which is described as a place for thinking outside of belief systems. Any thread which progresses past pitching softballs at the "Christians" on their board gets whisked away to no telling where. It might wind up on Comparative, or B&S, or esoteric...you just never know.

I think if posters had one well marked place to go debate Christianity it would take the pressure off the fellowship board so it can be the coffee clutch lounge that everyone seems to want. And it would be a convenient place to send argumentative stuff so that interesting debates could happen instead of good stuff getting lost because it's scattered all over the place willy nilly at the mod's whim.

Chris

That's why there is the Comparative Studies forum. Good for debating any religious belief. Also, I think one would find resistence in "debating" the merits of scriptural building blocks on, oh say the Islam forum or Judeasm forum, as well. In fact I'm quite positive.

As far as Esoteric or Liberal Christianity, well they aren't exactly literally bible based, so I fail to see were there is an issue about not having them combined with the Christianity forum. Again, one does not see much in the way of Kabala, or Sufi concepts on the above mentioned respective correlating Abrahamic faiths, yet there seems to be little complaint.

The "mod" comment, well I'm sorry you feel that way. That certainly isn't how we think Chris.

v/r

Joshua
 
Quahom1 said:
That's why there is the Comparative Studies forum. Good for debating any religious belief. Also, I think one would find resistence in "debating" the merits of scriptural building blocks on, oh say the Islam forum or Judeasm forum, as well. In fact I'm quite positive.

As far as Esoteric or Liberal Christianity, well they aren't exactly literally bible based, so I fail to see were there is an issue about not having them combined with the Christianity forum. Again, one does not see much in the way of Kabala, or Sufi concepts on the above mentioned respective correlating Abrahamic faiths, yet there seems to be little complaint.

The "mod" comment, well I'm sorry you feel that way. That certainly isn't how we think Chris.

v/r

Joshua

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
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
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?:eek: :eek:
 
Quahom1 said:
Hmmm, interesting points. But isn't this place already the "UN" of religious forums?:eek: :eek:

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
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
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. :)
 
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. :)
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
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?
 
Back
Top