lovingly inclusive bump for all.

I was going to post over there, but I decided not to. I didn't expect it would take long for a thread like this to appear :)

ummm, the KKK?

ok, that may not have been fair.

I would have appreciated seeing those who wish to have that dialogue have it. Though, I guess, if I did want to see it, I could go to a forum that encourages such beliefs.

Revjohn? would my life be easier or harder if I believed that there was only one answer for every question, that everything is yes/no, o/1, black/white. Colour does not exist. Rainbows do not exist. Rivers do not flow. The sun circles the world. My minister/pastor has the answer for everything, i just have to pay attention. If I die, it is because of something I did...clearly that is a function of my lack of prayer or belief

Well here we are, we can discuss it here! This raises the issue of inclusiveness for me. Are we really inclusive if we move in so quickly to shut down a discussion of conservative theology?

It is hard to guage the sincerity of the opening post on that thread, but I am not sure anything is served by barging in where we are not welcome. Why not leave them to it and see what happens?

I think there are fundamentalist moral absolutists on this site who have posted and continue to post (and I have no idea what the term is although I always liked the phrase 'flock of nuns' but I digress). I can think of several, one of whom is a dear gentle soul who I admire greatly for her grace even if I do not agree with all her beliefs. Her posts shine with a light. There are several others as well.

JB is a disgrace to those individuals and should not be put into the same category.

Rev John wrote Of course, she might just be the one and if that is the case thanks to all of you for at least making it look like a party over there. I would be very disappointed if a new poster showed up and had no like-minded friends to play with.

Unless of course they had ugly minds and then I would very much like them to go and soak it as well as scrub it with pumice.

Which I think aptly describes JB. Even when admitting she crossed the lines by posting the most profane post I have read in this forum, she accepts no responsibility but passes the blame on to every one else and baits Admin to banish her.

I feel no guilt for shining a light on her hypocrisy and if that is a sin, well so be it.

As some one else pointed out there are other dark minded forums that she can share her malevolent world view.

LB
Some evils are cured by contempt. George Herbert

To cross over into the threads about removing offensive posts, I did not happen to see the particular post you refer to, LB. Therefore, certain information about this Jennybeam was not available to me when I read her new topic.

I have encountered this situation previously on wondercafe. I noticed posters supporting RocktheBoat's right to express certain opinions, and they had obviously missed an especially inappropriate post of his. I believe it was posted overnight, and I saw it when I was on WC early in the a.m. It disappeared a few hours later.

I believe we need more information when posts are removed, but it is hard to imagine what the best solution would be. I admire Admin for doing a difficult job here.

Pinga: Yes, I agree. It is really not fair to respond to a post based on past history. This represents the argument for removing posts without leaving any trace.

Sometimes it gets confusing on threads when responses remain to posts that have been pulled. In this case, I think a notation needs to be made that a post has been removed.

The alternative is to delete the entire post, but that may not be fair to the person who started it in good faith.

Lots of gray areas here :(

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but ... thank you Pinga, again. I think the same thing.

LB: Thank you for your post, but I don't believe I need to see the offensive comments. I am satisfied to know that Admin made a decision.

Again, I believe that we need to be advised when posts are pulled.

LB, agreed; however, when an individual posts something, does that mean they can never post again without attack?

Yes, there will be postters who see patterns,. Sometimes they will do so where none belong.
But, each person has the potential to participate in the site.
If we do not attempt to build a bridge, then what right do we have to say we are welcoming of dialogue.

I have named posts which are outside of what I feel the boundaries are, and asked Admin to review. I did so, for JB, and both versions of RTB. I will watch RTB & JB due to their previous posts. I think though that when they are stomped prior to doing anything, then we all lose.

Although I agree about Jennybeams post, that thread is getting vile and it will be deleted soon, I think. I thought we were better than what is going on there.

Nice to see this thread attracting so many posts and views, and such thoughtful consideration.

It concerns me when a thread like the current one over in R and F gets so much attention. It just serves to feed the flames, so to speak.

crazyheart said: "I thought we were better than what is going on there."

Thank you. That is what I was wanting to say but having trouble finding the words for.

Pinga wrote LB, agreed; however, when an individual posts something, does that mean they can never post again without attack?

Pinga I could agree with that if I did not read JB's defending that particular post. Since only those who posted in that thread can read, and btw continue to post to it, this was the excuse offered by JB

I wish I hadn't used the bad language now in that other post. Damn administration puppets will probably boot me out now as well.

This was my response This is not a conversation, where in the heat of the moment one blurts out idiocy. You had ample opportunity to stop your self. You could have hit cancel, and even then, if you possessed no self control, you could have hit the trash can where it belonged.

To which JB responded I apologized. That's all I can do. Can you have a little grace for me and my potty mouth? I worked in a truck stop for a while. Curse words are commonplace there. I understand they are not here.

Well I grew up and have worked in mechanic shops, I can probably out swear anybody in this forum, but I don't and to say that people in such vocations are incapable of carrying on civil discourse, well, again it is offensive and no excuse.

Nor was what was posted "potty mouth". It was vile and malicious. Nothing this poster has posted since has changed my mind that their sole purpose here is to offend.

I'm sorry that I do not possess enough grace in this particular situation, I will leave that one up to God.

But since I do respect this site and the members, I will refrain from responding to this poster until there is a consensus that JB is either genuine in wishing to dialogue or is the troll she presented herself as on her first day.

BTW - how many boaters do we have out there. A Jenny beam is a part of a boat. Hmmm... Lost opportunity or not, I'm disgusted by this weekend's activity...c

I think we lose an opportunity each time at WC when the discussion devolves into a reference slinging match - where's the dialogue that this site is so good at fostering?

Where's the compassion - from either side of the Christian spectrum and the non-Christian dwellers at WC?

Small amounts of grace open so many more hearts and doors - and I hope for more of that here this year.

Let's all 'be the blessing' that one another needs in this place.

Thanks all, and thanks to RevJohn for providing an alternate place of dialogue, and for setting the tone as such.

MM

CJMS:

Maybe it's a female version of Jim Beam?

Paradox I will email the post to you and anyone else who wishes to see it. The thread was pulled because of it and if I posted it here it will likely will have the same result.

I think it is safe to say that I am not easily offended but that one was so over the top considering what this site represents that it managed to ruffle my hardened sensibilities. It also displayed a total disregard for this site and its readers by someone claiming to have lurked on this site for some time.

LB
The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by our facility with language. J. Michael Straczynski

Well said, MadMonk.

MM - I agree with holding ourselves to a high level. However I have never seen such appalling language and arguments on this site as the posts that have come from RTB (english and french) and JennyBeam this weekend. There are many people that hold a conservative pov that do not carry on in this way. I can respect them without agreeing with their statements. I cannot say the same for the posts made this weekend by RTB and JB. IMO, they are poor representatives of Christianity...c

IDM responded to the appeals.

My sense is the cafe has come a long way in a year.

I sit with friends, and enjoy a cup of virtual tea, thanking those who struggle to find meaningful dialogue. Thankful for those who deal with the pain that they see in the world around them, or are thrown in their face and still approach the world wanting to dialogue.

*** Pinga sits quietly pondering how this shows up in RL.

Just an FYI, the thread in Health and Aging "Healt Canada Policy Discriminatory" has returned minus the offensive post by JB.

Kudos to Admin.

Good one, john

Now lets see how many nazi zombie morons are hanging about!

Pinga,

Hi,

You wrote:

Revjohn? would my life be easier or harder if I believed that there was only one answer for every question, that everything is yes/no, o/1, black/white.

I don't know would it?

When I was in high school and grooving in the art room I did a lot of work with pen and ink.

That is black and white at it's purest. It is all technique. The trick is spacing. Getting the lines or points closer together gives you a darker tonal quality, if you are good enough you can trick the eye into thinking it is looking at something more than simple black and white, it "sees" variations of grey.

Which I think begs the question. If you are trying to trick the observer's eye into thinking that there are many shades of grey in your black and white work why not just use many shades of grey to begin with?

The only answer I can come up with is that such a short-cut denies the technical ability that the artist is demonstrating.

If a black and white thinker has mastery of such precision they can trick the observer into believing that rather than being simply black and white they can also manouver through all shades of grey.

They will, however; never convince anyone that they can do greens or blues or reds.

Of course some enterprising soul has marketted pens with those colours of ink so you can still apply the precise technique but in a variety of colours.

I do not see a lot of precision or technique offered in the black and white thinking that is offered here. At least not initially. I do think that some who showed up with pen and ink in hand and have wanted us to see the beauty they could produce have worked hard to master the medium and have managed to convince us they can pull off grey.

Others have no time for technique and use a very wide brush.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Paradox3,

Hi,

You wrote:

Are we really inclusive if we move in so quickly to shut down a discussion of conservative theology?

I think, that the Cafe is reasonably inclusive. We are not so ga-ga for inclusivity that anything goes. As long as the poster can articulate their position well and respectfully conversation can happen. It helps if they have a sense of humour as well because we do like levity here.

With respect to Jennybeam's thread. I don't think that the problem is conservative theology.

Lining up on the conservative side to the theological street I have never had anyone rush to shut down a theological conversation I started. Jennybeam in her debut set the tone for future conversation.

While many may have jumped the gun I do not think that many understand Jennybeam to be a bonafide lurker who suddenly got so fed up with our leaping on RockTheBoat and goading him that she had to stand up and be counted.

Like cjms I think the jennybeam persona is just another link in the rocker4God/bubye/RockTheBoat/rochlebateau saga.

I could be mistaken in this belief.

The might merely be related by ideology.

Jennybeam in her list of folk that have been chased out of WonderCafe managed to forget SylviaC/sientje8/Hopeful_1, and Dave. That may have been oversight though. And two of the list that Jennybeam did provide left not because they were chased out but rather because they had personal matters that needed their attention more than virtual ones.

The attempt to stir the pot is not an attempt to have legitimate discussion.

Grace and peace to you.

John

lbmuskoka: Thanks for the information re: the thread on Health and Aging. I don't peruse those threads very often, so I likely would have missed it.

I just had a look, and it provides some important background information to the issue at hand on this thread.

You wrote; "Kudos to Admin." I agree!

lbmuskoka,

Hi,

You wrote:

JB is a disgrace to those individuals and should not be put into the same category.

To be fair, Jennybeam chose that category for herself and was not put there by us.

As a broad category I think that is where she belongs even though I don't think she is representative of the best that Fundamentalist or Moral Absolutists can offer.

As a Calvinist I have to deal with the fact that the Reverend Fred Phelps also identifies as a Calvinist and I'm pretty sure he would test my ability to be gracious well past the breaking point. In my defence I would identify that I was going to demonstrate the doctrine of total depravity before I launched his backside down the street.

All I can do is say, okay, doofus is one and I am one it is up to everyone else to decide which of us is the better one and do my best to distinguish myself from that walking bile duct.

Likewise all the others who identify as fundamentalists and moral absolutists can do the same. They can embrace her as a kindred spirit or they can say, not so fast. If you want to be a knob do it under your own flag and, if she refuses they can take the time to demonstrate through their own interaction how they should not be brushed with the same tar that has been reserved for her.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Pinga,

Hi,

You asked:

when an individual posts something, does that mean they can never post again without attack?

SylviaC/Sientje8/Hopeful_1 had many posts that were not attacked. As long as she was able to converse respectfully she was treated respectfully in return.

Serena has had her ups and downs here. She can post without being attacked although when she decides to take it down a notch to street fight level we can go there with her. I note, as have others, that Serena shows less and less willingness to 'step outside' anymore. I commend her for hanging in on tough discussions.

RockTheBoat in almost everyone of his incarnations here has not been met initially with universal outrage. Moderate voices did try to engage his ideas. For the most part he ignored what they offered and continued on the collision course he had charted for himself.

EZed treated him to a stunningly powerful post to which his only response was OIC and the continuation of hateful language indicating that he was just as blind as before EZed's attempt to bring him some light.

That kind of sheer bloody mindedness is not interested in discussion. The only agenda that mattered was pain and discomfort and making others feel it.

That, I think, rightly needs to be attacked.

Grace and peace to you.

John

MadMonk,

Hi,

You wrote:

Small amounts of grace open so many more hearts and doors - and I hope for more of that here this year.

Amen and amen.

Grace and peace to you.

John

MikePaterson,

Hi,

You wrote:

Now lets see how many nazi zombie morons are hanging about!

I don't even want to know what kind of bait one needs to attract such lunkers.

I'm almost afraid to view the thread to see what does get caught.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi All,

Here's another thought about Jennybeam's thread.

What if all those that do post there are exactly those whom the thread has invited?

What have we been labelling a fundie here?

Has it been theological propositions or has it been a certain quality of closemindedness?

An invitation is given, you don't believe it is for you but you want to be at that party anyway. Explain your mind on that.

What has been our belief with the absolutists here?

Has it been that they insist on absolutes but cannot prove them or their insistence that they know the absolutes and we don't?

I don't know.

I am aware that some absolutely needed to chime in on that thread which prompts me to wonder.

Is jennybeam amazingly insightful or are others not really all that aware of who they are?

I have seen nothing which prompts me to think that jennybeam is amazingly insightful. That doesn't mean that we are all that aware.

I will have to ponder further I guess.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Rev john wrote Hi All,

Here's another thought about Jennybeam's thread.

What if all those that do post there are exactly those whom the thread has invited?

Then JB would have achieved his/her agenda. I do not believe it was a legitimate post. I think that this person wished to expose to ridicule the very people they claim to be. In my considered opinion, the RTB/JB cabal is well schooled in the "˜divide and conquer' technique.

But then again I miss the X-Files.

What have we been labelling a fundie here?

Has it been theological propositions or has it been a certain quality of closemindedness?

Can not speak for others, my interpretation of the label is beyond "˜a certain quality of close mindedness' and incorporates those who exhibit hate, agitation and malice; all of which JB/RTB have displayed all on their own with no provocation.

An invitation is given, you don't believe it is for you but you want to be at that party anyway. Explain your mind on that.

IMHO, it was not an honest invitation. Nor do I feel that people who rabbit on about the evils of censorship have afforded themselves the authority to post a "closed" thread.

What has been our belief with the absolutists here?

I believe there are many different absolutists on this site and a number probably do not recognize it in themselves.

Has it been that they insist on absolutes but cannot prove them or their insistence that they know the absolutes and we don't?

In the case of RTB it was the former. Refer to the thread in Popular Culture.

I am aware that some absolutely needed to chime in on that thread which prompts me to wonder.

Is jennybeam amazingly insightful or are others not really all that aware of who they are?

I have seen nothing which prompts me to think that jennybeam is amazingly insightful. That doesn't mean that we are all that aware.

I would agree that JB is not insightful but would argue he/she is extremely astute in manipulation. The agenda was clear out of the gate and I would say JB managed to fulfill a large part of that agenda.

Does that make me aware or just paranoid?

LB
This is the Nineties, Bubba, and there is no such thing as Paranoia. It's all true. Hunter S Thompson

lbmuskoka: You wrote: {I would agree that JB is not insightful but would argue he/she is extremely astute in manipulation.}

I concur completely with this observation. However, I believe that we can only speculate as to this individual's agenda. Perhaps he/ she simply enjoys creating chaos. Who can know?

lbmuskoka,

Hi,

You wrote:

Then JB would have achieved his/her agenda. I do not believe it was a legitimate post.

That presumes that we know what the agenda was. The stated agenda may not be the actual agenda. The stated agenda may have been a ruse to draw out intolerant critique and opinion.

Does the response within the thread demonstrate open-mindedness?

You wrote:

I think that this person wished to expose to ridicule the very people they claim to be.

That is a possibility. My read of the poster is that they tend to gravitate towards that particular perspective and as such would not mock or ridicule kindred spirits. I think that it may have been an attempt to circle the wagons.

You wrote:

In my considered opinion, the RTB/JB cabal is well schooled in the "˜divide and conquer' technique.

Can one person be rightly labelled a cabal?

You wrote:

my interpretation of the label is beyond "˜a certain quality of close mindedness' and incorporates those who exhibit hate, agitation and malice; all of which JB/RTB have displayed all on their own with no provocation.

I think that is a fair interpretation.

You wrote:

IMHO, it was not an honest invitation.

I agree. There seemed to be no sincerity in the opening post.

You wrote:

Nor do I feel that people who rabbit on about the evils of censorship have afforded themselves the authority to post a "closed" thread.

Interesting comment on authority. The notion of closed thread is something that boggles my mind in a place which champions open-minded discussion. By establishing participatory boundaries one has already begun to close one's mind.

You wrote:

I would agree that JB is not insightful but would argue he/she is extremely astute in manipulation.

I don't know if I would go so far as to make that claim. Just because one can throw feces into a fan doesn't mean they have a great throwing arm. It might mean that they enjoy the wafting odour and being coated in a finely spattered dung. It is hardly astute.

You wrote:

The agenda was clear out of the gate and I would say JB managed to fulfill a large part of that agenda.

I'm still yes and no on that. I'd feel better if I could be certain of the agenda. To have certainty I'd need to see a degree of honesty in the poster. Jennybeam hasn't evidenced enough for me to even guess at what she is really all about.

You asked:

Does that make me aware or just paranoid?

Since you are questioning options I would think that makes you cautious.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn and lbmuskoka: I guess we are speculating about skill in manipulation. Yikes!

This is an amazing thread.

If I was really good at manipulation and writing, and someone who despised all forms of Christianity, I might pull of a RTB or JennyBean.

By doing so, I would succeed on a few counts
1. showing how people from various spectrums can stoop to the lowest common denominator
2. causing dissention amongst christians, ie, driving a spike
3. disrupting the board and providing more copy for those who wish to diss it.

so...

what do i think regarding the posters. I do not presume to know who or why they did what they do

all I can own is my personal reaction to it, and my attempts to mitigate the damage.

RevJohn wrote That presumes that we know what the agenda was. The stated agenda may not be the actual agenda. The stated agenda may have been a ruse to draw out intolerant critique and opinion.

Either way the agenda was one of manipulation.

Does the response within the thread demonstrate open-mindedness?

Should manipulation be responded to with open-mindedness?

You wrote: I think that this person wished to expose to ridicule the very people they claim to be.

That is a possibility. My read of the poster is that they tend to gravitate towards that particular perspective and as such would not mock or ridicule kindred spirits. I think that it may have been an attempt to circle the wagons.

My experience differs.

You wrote: In my considered opinion, the RTB/JB cabal is well schooled in the "˜divide and conquer' technique.

Can one person be rightly labelled a cabal?

Now who is making assumptions? Until proven otherwise I will take it on face value there are two people. A cabal can consist of two or perhaps a multiple personality could be considered a cabal within one body.

You wrote: Nor do I feel that people who rabbit on about the evils of censorship have afforded themselves the authority to post a "closed" thread.

Interesting comment on authority. The notion of closed thread is something that boggles my mind in a place which champions open-minded discussion. By establishing participatory boundaries one has already begun to close one's mind.

Glad you noticed; I chose that word carefully.

There appears to be a presumption on some that this was JB's first post to Wonder Café. It wasn't and the responses of those who "˜jumped into the party' were based on prior interactions. As my grandma always says "˜you reap what you sow'

You wrote: The agenda was clear out of the gate and I would say JB managed to fulfill a large part of that agenda.

I'm still yes and no on that. I'd feel better if I could be certain of the agenda. To have certainty I'd need to see a degree of honesty in the poster. Jennybeam hasn't evidenced enough for me to even guess at what she is really all about.

Again, I will differ. Perhaps I have had more exposure to the JB persona and my nose for their particular malodor is more sensitive.

I could be wrong but I am not going to hold my breath that JB will exhibit any genuine proof to the contrary.

LB
Told ya' darlin'
All along, I was right and you were wrong.
A-pleasin' you, So hard to do.
Cried all night long, Was beatin' through.
Can't sow wild oats 'spect to gather corn.
Can't take right And make it wrong.
Told ya' darlin', Long time ago,
You gotta reap What you sow, and what you sow, yeah,
Is gonna make you weep, A-some day,
Van Morrison, Philosophy

Pinga, It had occured to me as well that RTB/ JB might be creating a deliberate parody of the religious right :)

I was having trouble imagining what the motivation could be, and you have outlined a few of the possibilities. Is it helpful to continue speculating? I am unsure at this point, and I don't want to feed the troll any further, if that is what is happening on this thread.

However, I believe we are discussing this in good faith over here on Social. RevJohn was wise to start the thread here, thus providing a little distance from the action.

lbmuskoka,

Hi,

You wrote:

Either way the agenda was one of manipulation.

I agree with you whole heartedly. There is still a question of direction in regard to that manipulation.

If someone is pushing against me the appropriate counter is to push against them.

If someone is pulling me toward them the appropriate counter is to pull away from them.

If someone starts to push me and I opt to pull away it is most likely that I will be the one falling on my backside.

Knowing that one is being manipulated helps only if one knows what one is being manipulated to do.

You wrote:

Should manipulation be responded to with open-mindedness?

Good counter.

Again, I think that with the above illustrations open-mindedness is the most effective counter to close-mindedness.

You wrote:

My experience differs.

Fair enough.

Can one person be rightly labelled a cabal?

Now who is making assumptions?

From time to time I am willing to bear the mantle of the ass.

You wrote:

A cabal can consist of two or perhaps a multiple personality could be considered a cabal within one body.

MPD!? Hmmmmm. I will graciously allow that as speculation and not offer you a corner of the asses mantle.

You wrote:

Glad you noticed; I chose that word carefully.

I think that we have as a community accepted that folk beginning threads have a certain 'authority' to police them and/or shape discussion.

I do not think we have come to a place that allows for a segregation of posters.

You wrote:

As my grandma always says "˜you reap what you sow'

Or the teacher before her who claimed that those who sowed the wind would reap the whirlwind.

I agree. Jennybeam is reaping what she has sown here.

You wrote:

Again, I will differ. Perhaps I have had more exposure to the JB persona and my nose for their particular malodor is more sensitive.

Very possible.

You wrote:

I could be wrong but I am not going to hold my breath that JB will exhibit any genuine proof to the contrary.

Thank you for not holding your breath.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Paradox3,

Hi,

You wrote:

I guess we are speculating about skill in manipulation. Yikes!

Not necessarily. I'm just very shameless about running down interesting tangents in conversation.

I think this tangent has a lot of merit in the overall discussion.

Grace and peace to you.

John

MikePaterson,

Hi,

You may not know this but I resisted popping into your thread for quite some time (relative standards apply).

Eventually, as responses started to pile up I was overwhelmed with a morbid need to know who these Nazi Zombie Morons might be.

Your opening post was quite the welcome.

Thanks for the laugh.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn wrote Knowing that one is being manipulated helps only if one knows what one is being manipulated to do.

You wrote: Should manipulation be responded to with open-mindedness?

Good counter.

Again, I think that with the above illustrations open-mindedness is the most effective counter to close-mindedness.

Again response is based on prior experience. My experience has been that being open minded to manipulation led to harm. I have never experienced a case of manipulation that resulted otherwise; perhaps your life lessons have been different.

Maybe the real question is, does perceived threat lead to close mindedness? If so, should one open their mind and potentially expose themselves to injury?

You wrote: A cabal can consist of two or perhaps a multiple personality could be considered a cabal within one body.

MPD!? Hmmmmm. I will graciously allow that as speculation and not offer you a corner of the asses mantle.

It was indeed a proposal but I have no problem sharing a corner of the mantle.

I think that we have as a community accepted that folk beginning threads have a certain 'authority' to police them and/or shape discussion.

I do not think we have come to a place that allows for a segregation of posters.

I am not sure I understand what is being said here. The reality is threads often travel far a field from the original poster's intent even when that poster tries to redirect the ship.

And who exactly is being segregated, JB or the posters she wished to shut out?

Thank you for not holding your breath.

I'm afraid I was never very good at it, thus my failure to full my life's ambition of becoming a pearl diver.

LB
'Twas he that ranged the words at random flung, Pierced the fair pearls and them together strung. Bidpai (Pilpay), Anvari Suhaili

Quite frankly, the world is full of jennybeams. We cannot wipe them off the face of the planet in one swoop. I suppose in the virtual microcosm of Wondercafe it is easier to rally opinions and press the delete button for offensive posts, but really, a day later, after the fact, I find myself asking,"How did Jesus prepare us to answer in such a situation?" Sarcasm, irony, ----I don't think so. Most of us live in the real world. I'd like to think that as Christians we are equipped to deal with these situations quickly, but at the same time leave the example of what we are trying to live. Sure jennybeam may be engulfed with hatred, fear, misguided, etc... I don't know, but are we to be selective as to who the broken are? How would Jesus have answered the thread? (I know, I know, WWWD, but seriously)
So Rev. John, what do you think the scriptures would have had us do? It is going to happen again, what is the Christian response?

I wanted to be a pearl diver too! It was my favourite book as a child!

Keno has found the pearl of the world!

*I think that was his name lol*

It is a lost art. My dream inspired by John Steinbeck and reinforce by watching the divers of Oahu. Now there was beauty and grace personified.

LB
If this story is a parable, perhaps everyone takes his own meaning from it and reads his own life into it. John Steinbeck, The Pearl

Whew. What a thread.

First off, I think that this whole debaucle is a sign that we need to relook the functioning of the site and not just the post. I used to post quite frequently on The Leaky Cauldron (a Harry Potter forum). One of the ways they showed a poster's history of warnings was a percentage bar by the avatar. It showed how many notes from moderators (and the notes) they had received if you clicked on the bar.

That said... would people's posts never be taken seriously or tolerantly again? jennybeam's post, to me, was an exercise in tolerance. We failed. It became a throw-them-to-the-lions spectacle. Now, whether it was designed for such a purpose or not is really beside the point.

I (think I) am one of those moderate voices RevJohn mentioned about RockTheBoat. While we obviously have different opinions, we did manage to have a fairly unexcited discussion about Absolute Morality in the Pop Culture forum. I have not been at the blunt end of anyone's ideals or opinions, but I am aware that others have. Some of it is unprovoked, but some of it is like I mentioned on jennybeam's thread - like hyenas. There are many out there who are willing to tear an argument apart when it is an opinion. Ask anyone who has a stubborn friend - butting heads is not going to change their minds. You must offer them an alternative view. That's why we're here, isn't it? To share our ideas and our views?

I haven't been posting on the forum for too long, but I would like to think that I am a respected member. I have been welcomed here for my moderate views... even by those of less moderate views like RockTheBoat. I don't see why people with more liberal views are any different from those with more conservative ones if they're being just as intolerant.

Farren

lbmuskoka,

Hi,

You wrote:

I have never experienced a case of manipulation that resulted otherwise; perhaps your life lessons have been different.

Fair enough. I do not think that open-mindedness automatically translates into unquestioning acceptance.

When hostility or aggression are the opening strategies discussion is a war of attrition and the winner just the last one standing

You wrote:

Maybe the real question is, does perceived threat lead to close mindedness? If so, should one open their mind and potentially expose themselves to injury?

That is a really excellent question. At present I am hard pressed to figure out how an open mind invites injury unless it is through some form of betrayal.

You wrote:

It was indeed a proposal but I have no problem sharing a corner of the mantle.

There's plenty of room if more want the same coverage it could get snug though.

You wrote:

I am not sure I understand what is being said here. The reality is threads often travel far a field from the original poster's intent even when that poster tries to redirect the ship.

That is true. We still recognize a certain "ownership" of thread depending upon who initiates it more so that who contributes to it.

You wrote:

And who exactly is being segregated, JB or the posters she wished to shut out?

Segregation is a very inclusive practice. Each is shut off from the other.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Waterfall,

Hi,

You wrote:

So Rev. John, what do you think the scriptures would have had us do? It is going to happen again, what is the Christian response?

I don't think that there is "The" Christian response to such individuals.

I do believe that there are a number of Christian responses that may be employed.

I think that there can only be one Christian mindset and that is a loving one.

Jesus claims he must die. Peter rebukes him. Jesus calls him Satan.

Christian response? Well if a Christian is one who is like Christ I guess it is permissable provided the one called Satan is, attempting to divide. Did Jesus love Peter any less in that moment?

Jesus calls the high priest a white-washed tomb.

Christian response? Same as above. It is a permissable response if what is being addressed is something that only death is coming out of. Did Jesus love the high-priest any less in that moment?

As a Christian I can forgive anything done to me. I might even be eager to forgive whatever is done to me. Do I as a Christian have the right to forgive someone for what they have done to others?

When I forgive what has been done to me I release my right to recompense. When I forgive what has been done to another to I provide the same release? If so, how does the true victim feel about my ability to forgive others what has been done to them? Does that even fall under the rubric of love thy neighbour?

I would be interested to hear your take on what "The" Christian response to jenny and others should have been.

Grace and peace to you.

John

This reminds me of "Frankenstein". He was the monster, but in the end what stuck with you was what the people, who claimed not to be monsters, did.

A wise person told me long ago "it is very easy to spot a real monster, it is less easy to see one developing, it is a bit harder to look at how you are feeding one and it is very hard work seeing how easily you yourself can turn into one"