Posted on 05/18/2006 7:43:02 PM PDT by Quix
PROPOSALS INVITED TOWARD A MORE CIVIL DISCOURSE RE RELIGIOUS FIGURES AT ODDS WITH VARIOUS SENSIBILITIES
The current thread regarding Pat Robertson is but the latest in a long tradition of certain flavors of evangelical Christian and particularly Pentecostal/Charismatic religious figures being thoroughly shredded by what--90% or more of the posts--usually in the harshest, most hostile, even demonizing wording possible.
It seems that when folks are perceived to be in such Pentecostal/charismatic categories, all bets are off, no holds barred--the most viscious attacks are the minimal Standard Operating Procedure. Instead of exhorting one another in Christian Love, the worst attitudes normally evidenced in the most ruthless of groups seems to flood out from many corners of the forum.
The forum rules about personal attacks are thrown to the wind--usually with great cheered-on fervor.
Personally, I don't mind the likes of Shrillery getting thoroughly castigated. They are the evil--even truly satanic opponents to everything this forum stands for. Ditto for the Jihadis. I think on that, all conservatives would readily agree or near agree.
However, when it comes to religious figures, there tends to be great haughty hostility to those not seen as kosher enough--and too often--for all those not members of one's own tidy little group.
We can ALL feel DUTY BOUND to "set folks Bibllically straight" regarding the horrible demonic errors of this or that figure. And, Pentecostals/charismatics usually make easy targets because we say things that are very uncommon in other corners of Christianity--though, interestingly, not at all uncommon in the New Testament Church.
But, from our perspective, we could say the same thing about John McArthur, for example. Or Dave Hunt.
Each homogenic group could come up with a list of popular religious figures from other groups that the first group considered evil and beyond the pale.
Then there's the great hostility between the RC's and the Protestants.
IF WE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT ACTING LIKE JESUS--THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY to handle such perspectives. What are your proposals?
It's not up to the beleagured Religion Moderator. And Dear JimRob has been driven to distractions more than a few times and probably wished there was some way to send the whole religion forum into a black hole for good.
It seems to me that if we cannot police ourselves better on this score, that we may well not deserve to call ourselves CHRIST-LIKE = CHRISTIAN.
-----------------------------------------
I'm not suggesting that we ought not be allowed to state sincerely held perspectives which question another's stance as being Biblical enough or full of enough integrity or lacking in duplicity etc. We ought still be able to articulate what we perceive to be true and particularly Biblicly true vs UnBiblical.
But doing so so outrageously and in such devilish terms ought to stop and stop cold. PARTICULARLY ABOUT THINGS WITH REGARD TO WHICH THERE IS BIBLICAL ROOM TO DISAGREE, TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSPECTIVE. I am not talking about the Virgin Birth, The Resurrection etc.
But we ought to have some mutually agreed upon minimal Christian standard for doing so. And we ought to police ourselves as well as lovingly each other.
-----------------------------------------------
Personally, my proposal would be
1. that things such as calling another religious figure a demonized, satanic, etc individual needs to be limited to VERY OVERT DEMONSTRATIONS OF CLEARLY DEMONIC BEHAVIORS AND STATEMENTS. That is, demonized behaviors common in the NT. Statements clearly and overtly blasphemous in starkly brazen and obvious terms--not interpreted, rationalized terms on the part of the hearer.
2. that naysayers from outside the normal Christian community--those hostile to the whole idea of Christianity and all the more so to anything remotely supernaturally Christian--that those sorts of hostile naysayers be soundly, persistently and totally discouraged from getting away with their viscious, demeaning, virulant rants.
3. That once the more strident of us have stated our perspective regarding a particular religious figure--especially 2-3 times--we would do well to let it rest and avoid ranting on and on and on and on for dozens of strident redundant posts.
4. IF WE CAN PUT THINGS tenatively and graciously, OK--perhaps a longer discourse would be warranted or merited. Graciousness deserves something extra in the religion forum! But the haughty, self-righteous-from Mt Sinai sorts of castigating-of-all-not-our-idea-not-our-tidy-little-box--that needs to go and go quickly.
5. Those failing to follow through with such guidelines might voluntarily or even at Mod's requirement take themselves out of the next X or XX such threads. Or perhaps they would be prevented/ordered to avoid all further threads on such a topic.
---------------------------
I'm happy to consider other reasonable alternatives. I'm just groping to try and find a workable, functional way which
1. Allows reasonable discourse and a mutually respectful sharing of all perspectives on a topic and even on a personage.
2. Demonstrates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE of the unity of spirit and mutual charity which Christ called HIS FOLLOWERS to.
3. Prevents virtually every thread that involves Pentecostal/Charismatic figures and topics from becoming a bloody shredding fest ALWAYS at the expense of those of that perspective.
4. Brings glory to God instead of such a tarnished bad taste in everyone's mouths because of the awful behavior of God's snotty nosed kids.
Also, the challenge was countered in a subsequent post.
Consider this an opportunity to repair any misunderstandings that may exist concerning the leaders of your faith. Just be sure to discuss the issues and never make it personal (towards another Freeper) - to avoid problems.
I did help out with Operation Blessing for a couple of months in Colombia. They are doing good work in the worst neighborhoods (and in many of the middle-class neighborhoods).
You realize that Pat gave away over $200 million of his own money to ministries a few years back (following the sale of The Family Channel), and takes no salary for his work at The 700 Club?
He's done and said some silly things. I admit. I've done and said silly things. But you cannot just write him off as a money-grubbing phoney. He's not. He's a human who is acting out his faith in the Lord as best he can. Some mistakes. Some great things. Just like me. And you.
For Example: "Rostarians Uber Alles....9 million Protestants realize the truth and covert to the real religion"
That kind of title is an invitation to contribute a few carefully selected words.
- - - -
I think you are quite right. Some titles seem particularly and very 'thoughtfully' ENGINEERED to wind the folk up on FR whom the posters wish to harrangue and beat over the head with their particular proof texts and tidy little boxes. There is something outrageous and unChristian about that but I doubt we are going to come up with a gracious, easy, FR-ish way to neutralized it soon and certainly not overnight.
I think I am beginning to get a better handle on what other folks consider "personal." Sometimes it seems like there are an abundance of double-standards in such areas but I can't do anything about that. I can do better at insuring I'm not personal.
I would have thought that "apologizing to Pat" and "repenting" was not personal about a person's personhood. Therefore it was not personal. It was about someone's actions or inactions--which I construed as kosher. I'm beginning to understand that such is typically construed by others as personal. I shall do better.
I not only wish to play well within the rules. I want to go beyond them in being truly Christ-like in Love, forgiveness, extending the benefit-of-the-doubt that I would like, unto others etc.
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind responses.
never make it personal (towards another Freeper) - to avoid problems.
- - -
Thanks.
Am trying very hard to do that.
Sometimes I think I take the definition for that from what other people get away with and that's clearly a wrong place to get the definition for that.
Would you please, maybe in one sentence define very inclusively what "making it personal" would include and maybe a sentence about what it would not include?
Sorry but I can't trust the way my mind thinks about such things without very emphatically clear boundaries. I tend to construe all kinds of options where no one else would see them. Just the history of my mind. Sorry to need so much hand-holding on this issue but it's just my unique thought processes plus my history on FR that leave me feeling insecure.
Thanks tons in advance.
For example: Would this from another thread be too personal? Personal at all in your meaning?
- - - -
And, it feels, appears strongly to me that your standard/attitude/criteria is less than God's highest in this situation.
Here's an easy test: Any time the pronoun "you" is used, then something in that sentence is potentially personal toward the person being written to.
CTR
How many hours do you work?
As many as possible.
LOL do you eat or sleep?:)
I have also had dealings with Pat Robertson. He is a money grugging fraud that is not interested in your soul, my soul or any others. His God is money, pure and simple.
Why isn't that in the news we know how the Left hates religion?
I am as far right as they come and very knowledgable regarding the Bible. My personal dealings with Pat are not news worthy. But, believe me, I have seen him for exactly what he is. If you want to respect and follow him that is your privilage but for me and my house we will follow the Lord.
That is true. Someone told me that I wasn't a Christian the other day on a thread. Seeing how much Christ centered stuff I do and am involved with, it made me unhappy, but I realized he was replying to the writer of the post I had posted.
I erased three different replies to him, basically quoted some scripture that made me feel better, and said, if he had a complaint, to take it up with the original writer of the post instead of me, and that I wasn't going to continue in an argument.
But it does make me see red first when people tell me I don't love the Lord. A person might not agree with my church or my theology, but to doubt the level of my commitment is one of the things that really irks me.
It gets tricky for me to keep my conscience clean at moments like that and turn the other cheek, but I am working on it.
That's why he gives away so much money and time -- because he loves money.
Let me say it flatly -- I don't believe you've had "dealings" with Pat Robertson. I've spent time with him, talking face-to-face with him on several occasions during the years I studied at the university he founded and during the years I worked in one of the companies he founded. I've been in many meetings with him, and seen how he is off-camera. And you say you've had "dealings" with Pat Robertson. I was specific. You be specific. If you can't, you need to stop slandering the man.
OPERATION BLESSING IS 100% DELIVERED TO THE NEEDY END USERS.
Why so much hate for an organization that helps so many people? Bizarre. You've worked for OB as I have (on several occasions, in the U.S. and Colombia)? I hate to say it so bluntly, but you're speaking from ignorance, my friend.
Prophet ordered the disciples to shake the dust off their and move on.
When the loonie left observed the power of this website in defeating algore, did they sit on their hands??! They flooded this site with shills to drive away your normal, everyday, hard-working people, replacing such with malcontents and nobody's whose only power comes from the infinity of the Internet.
Ergo, you, me, Joel, Rick, TBN, Copeland, Meyer etc. have bullseyes painted on our backs, with sentries sitting at their laptops.
They ain't ready to play nice, Quix. {How's your dad?}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.