A proposal on some things

[Yamamaya]

I was once a mod of a theology area on a Christian website, so perhaps I can provide some insight into this issue.

While the theological discussions tended to be more polite than political discussions, they tended to bring out strong emotions. It seemed every day was just another battle in the internet war between Calvanists, Arminians(and Catholics too!)

Of course one difference between that board and this one is that they(the theology board) lacked a sense of unity due to the size of the area(plus the area was only used for theological discussions). They had few opportunities to get to know each other on a personal level. They only interacted through theological debates. Since we tend to have more of a sense of unity, this could be avoided.

Theological discussions tend to be ugly when you throw together people with diametrically opposed views in a controversial topic such as Arminism vs Calvanism vs Universalism. For example, a small disagreement over the meaning of the book of Jonah isn't likely to spawn as huge an argument as a disagreement over the issue of salvation.

As for politics, I don't see how anything good could come out of allowing political debate on this forum. Every time politics creeped into the theology board(such as arguments about whether Obama was the AntiChrist) things got nasty fast. I've seen this on almost every board I visit. Politics has always been a dogfight, from the politicians fighting each other to get elected to political arguments on forums.

Allow me to give a personal example. I'm one of the few Liberal homeschoolers I know. When I was a junior in high school I attended a cottage school(basically a once a week college prep school for homeschoolers). This one was a smaller one than one I had previous attended. It was 2008, the height of the election season. I kept my mouth shut as all my conservative friends talked about politics save for an occassional comment. My friends finally found out I was a Democrat when I wasn't amused by an Anti Obama poster one of them was showing me(They asked if I was a Democrat and I admitted it). They were mostly nice to me, save for a mother who came over to preach to me about how Obama was the AntiChrist. However, the little kids there(being little kids) were different. One day, I was sitting at a table and they surrounded me and began to question me about why I liked Obama since he killed babies. Let's just say awkwardness ensued. Even after that day, I avoided political conversations as much as possible.

In real life, politics is rarely a friendly topic unless you are discussing it with people who agree with you. It has a way of polarizing friends. It's the same case with discussions about politics on the internet. However, it can become even worse as other people have noted.

In conclusion, let's limit political discussion here as much as possible.

[Peanut]

Before I post anything I have to admit that I haven't read through every post in this thread so, if this has been brought up already then I apologize for reiterating something someone has said.

I have to admit that I've been frustrated with something with CAA for a very long time. The experiment with theological discussions and the discussions to try and keep these discussions going has actually made it worse which honestly surprises me. Like MSP and others, I think CAA has "lost" the Christian part of its acronym and think that that is something that needs to be recovered somehow. From this experiment, threads like this and quotes like the ones I highlighted here a question has come to my mind that I've been pondering and the answer that I'm seeing disturbs me and frustrates me.

The question is simply why weren't we having these discussions before? Besides PM, there are plenty of ways that people on CAA could sit down and talk about these issues without doing it on the forums. I know in the past there have been attempts to hold Bible Studies with people from CAA. They've all failed because of either technical issues or lack of interest. I don't see why a similar thing couldn't be done with any other issue either. So, its not like there weren't already ways for these topics to be discussed and yet they weren't.

When I look at this and I look at these posts I have to admit that I wonder if the majority of CAA members are really invested in the strengthening the spirituality of other CAA members or if they really only care about themselves. I can't say this for certain because I can't see into people's hearts and I don't really know most of you. But the fact that this is an issue and no one seems to be talking about what we'll do to continue these conversations if this rule gets put back into place bothers me a lot and seems to suggest this.

[ShiroiHikari]

I would just like to clarify that while I am all for civil theological discussion, I still do not think politics have a place on these boards.

The experiment with theological discussions and the discussions to try and keep these discussions going has actually made it worse which honestly surprises me.

Care to elaborate on this?

So you're saying if members of CAA want to talk about theology/spirituality, they should do it offsite? I disagree. The whole point of a forum is public discussion.

[K. Ayato]

Hear, hear!

[Tsukuyomi]

I would just like to clarify that while I am all for civil theological discussion, I still do not think politics have a place on these boards.



Care to elaborate on this?

So you're saying if members of CAA want to talk about theology/spirituality, they should do it offsite? I disagree. The whole point of a forum is public discussion.

Much like with most things, people have their own viewpoints/opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but it's when one person doesn't like the viewpoint of another member (or they think they're wrong), that's when things go sour :\ People tend to feel strongly in their beliefs and are unwillingly to give them up. People tend to try to get others to adopt their thinking. When that doesn't happen, chaos ensues >_<

I'm not saying it's impossible, but like was said before, it only takes one person to get things started in the wrong direction..

End point is.. To much clashing :\

[Peanut]

Care to elaborate on this?

So you're saying if members of CAA want to talk about theology/spirituality, they should do it offsite? I disagree. The whole point of a forum is public discussion.

What I'm saying (or asking) is why did this rule stop us from having these conversations before? I'm not advocating talking about these things offsite or even onsite but instead pointing out that there were ways to have these discussions even when the rule was in place. It seems to me that if we really want to grow and help others grow spiritually and we considered these discussions to be important in this then we would have been putting more effort into working around the rules to get it done. I see CAA as being a community more then a a public forum and I think this is proven by how it isn't bound by the forum. The fact that there are CAA meet-ups at Cons and group conversations on Skype proves this to me.

[Kaligraphic]

Recently, a thread was posted about how rough porn stars' lives are. Despite (or, perhaps, because of?) explicit mod warning not to devolve into justifying or condemning porn itself, it zeroed in on exactly that topic, pretty much to the exclusion of all else - including the original point of the thread. Frankly, I think that if we can't - as a community - manage to at least avoid the one direction that we were explicitly told no to go in, CAA might not be ready as a group for the freedom it's asking for.

I would go so far as to support the addition of a link to an external political forum (much like our current link to theologyweb), but without significant training in how to engage in delimited (semi)political discussions without contributing to emotional thread meltdowns, I don't think CAA as a community can host open political discussions.

In fact, even if we could, the most inflammatory arguments I've seen online or in person have been not strictly political, or strictly theological, but theologically informed political debates. You can't break down "X is a bad candidate" without breaking down "X is a baby eating monster", and you can't disprove "X is a baby eating monster" factually, because it's an emotional belief tied to "X is an enemy of religious faction Y (and therefore of God)", and if you try to untangle that, you end up fighting on political, theological, factual, and philosophical grounds all at once. It's not something that you want to do unprepared, in a mixed crowd, over a narrow communication channel like an Internet forum. It'd be like a crowd of doctors each trying to perform a different ever expanding surgery on one another in a crowded theme park using street food as antiseptic, with no anesthesia, while competing for access with every other doctor trying to perform their own surgeries. It can only end in a very bloody mess, strewn with severed relationships, accidental (and malicious) disembowelment and dismemberment, broken hearts, and dead clowns.

[Yamamaya]

When I look at this and I look at these posts I have to admit that I wonder if the majority of CAA members are really invested in the strengthening the spirituality of other CAA members or if they really only care about themselves.

I take issue with this part of your post, mainly because no one joins a forum to "improve it or improve the spirtuality of the posters." They join forums for fellowship with people that have similar interests, situations, or beliefs. They continue to post on forums because of that common ground and the friends they make.

Also, some don't feel qualified to try to strengthen the spirtuality of others because they feel they are too sinful and flawed.

In addition, saying that someone "only cares about themselves" implies a form of narcissism. Most of us are somewhat selfish in one way or another.

We can all work together in our spirtual walks, but that requires a few people to take the first step. Also like blkmage mentioned, at times it can be difficult to use a forum for such purposes.

[Peanut]

I take issue with this part of your post, mainly because no one joins a forum to "improve it or improve the spirtuality of the posters." They join forums for fellowship with people that have similar interests, situations, or beliefs. They continue to post on forums because of that common ground and the friends they make.

Also, some don't feel qualified to try to strengthen the spirtuality of others because they feel they are too sinful and flawed.

It seems to me that we have very different definitions of friendship and what it means to be qualified to minister. To me, a friend is more then someone I hang out with, they are also a person who I can rely on for strength and give strength to as well. They are someone who are willing to make me a better person and allow me to make them a better person too. A better way to describe this is with the Proverb "As iron sharpens iron, a friend sharpens a friend." I've had friendships like this on CAA so I don't see why others can't have a similar experience. On top of this, I don't think MSP along many others would agree with you on this first point. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because people are emphasizing the Christian aspect of CAA and are implying that it is more then just "hanging out with people who are Christians like me." They want something more and that's why we're having this conversation.

As to your second point, I can tell you that that is only a reason for humility in that pursuit and not one that should stop one for ministering. I'm reminded of Henri Nouwen, a priest who was also a celibate homosexual who has had a ministry that's far outlasted his life. Part of the reason why he has such an appeal to individuals like myself and other minister's as well is because you can sense the real struggle he went through between his own desires (or sinful nature depending on your views) and the vows he took. And yet he still ministered. I also happen to think that laity are as important in ministry as minister's themselves and, honestly, have proven many times to be able to do the things minister's are hired to do as effectively.

In addition, saying that someone "only cares about themselves" implies a form of narcissism. Most of us are somewhat selfish in one way or another.

We can all work together in our spirtual walks, but that requires a few people to take the first step. Also like blkmage mentioned, at times it can be difficult to use a forum for such purposes.

This wasn't clear, and I apologize that it wasn't, but I would include myself in the critique I gave. I wouldn't say I was implying narcissism though, more of just an exposure of our selfish tendencies. I also didn't say that I know these things. It could just be me projecting my own flaws on others and I completely recognize that. But for me to truly except that I would probably need to see something that flies completely in the face of this which I really haven't yet.

[Yamamaya]

It seems to me that we have very different definitions of friendship and what it means to be qualified to minister. To me, a friend is more then someone I hang out with, they are also a person who I can rely on for strength and give strength to as well. They are someone who are willing to make me a better person and allow me to make them a better person too. A better way to describe this is with the Proverb "As iron sharpens iron, a friend sharpens a friend." I've had friendships like this on CAA so I don't see why others can't have a similar experience. On top of this, I don't think MSP along many others would agree with you on this first point. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because people are emphasizing the Christian aspect of CAA and are implying that it is more then just "hanging out with people who are Christians like me." They want something more and that's why we're having this conversation.

That's all well and good. I would agree with you that that is the definition of a good friend. This does not always develop on a forum though. Not to mention not everyone joins forums to find lifelong friends. This certainly would be an ideal thing to reach for. The word "friend" is a very broad term. It can mean everything from a mere acquaintance to a spirtual brother or sister.

As to your second point, I can tell you that that is only a reason for humility in that pursuit and not one that should stop one for ministering. I'm reminded of Henri Nouwen, a priest who was also a celibate homosexual who has had a ministry that's far outlasted his life. Part of the reason why he has such an appeal to individuals like myself and other minister's as well is because you can sense the real struggle he went through between his own desires (or sinful nature depending on your views) and the vows he took. And yet he still ministered. I also happen to think that laity are as important in ministry as minister's themselves and, honestly, have proven many times to be able to do the things minister's are hired to do as effectively.

Of course, but that doesn't change how others feel. Personal faults can create a sense of inadequacy. For example someone might think, "How can I really minister? It would be so hypocritical of me considering all my sins." It may not be right but it is a real emotion people deal with.

[Peanut]

That's all well and good. I would agree with you that that is the definition of a good friend. This does not always develop on a forum though. Not to mention not everyone joins forums to find lifelong friends. This certainly would be an ideal thing to reach for. The word "friend" is a very broad term. It can mean everything from a mere acquaintance to a spirtual brother or sister.

Wait, where did I say that this always develops on a forum? I said it has developed for me implying that it is possible. I would agree with you that friend is a very broad term but I do still think the phrase "As iron sharpens iron, a friend sharpens a friend" applies for all friendships, not just the super close ones. It doesn't have to be much, but I do think all friendships do have this to a degree.

Of course, but that doesn't change how others feel. Personal faults can create a sense of inadequacy. For example someone might think, "How can I really minister? It would be so hypocritical of me considering all my sins." It may not be right but it is a real emotion people deal with.

I think you missed my point or I just failed at making it. I was recognizing that this is how others feel but emphasizing that it shouldn't get in an individuals way. Going into ministry I can tell you that I have wrestled with this but I haven't let my recognition of my flaws get in the way of doing what I think God has called me to do. I don't think this is a unique experience either since I know other people going into ministry who have the same experience though I can't say I know this for certain. The point of what I was saying was more of an encouragement to not let the awareness of one's dark side contribute to it controlling you and preventing you from doing what God has called you to do.

[Solid Ronin]

As I see it this is an awesome thread.

Of course, but that doesn't change how others feel. Personal faults can create a sense of inadequacy. For example someone might think, "How can I really minister? It would be so hypocritical of me considering all my sins." It may not be right but it is a real emotion people deal with.

I think you missed my point or I just failed at making it. I was recognizing that this is how others feel but emphasizing that it shouldn't get in an individuals way. Going into ministry I can tell you that I have wrestled with this but I haven't let my recognition of my flaws get in the way of doing what I think God has called me to do. I don't think this is a unique experience either since I know other people going into ministry who have the same experience though I can't say I know this for certain. The point of what I was saying was more of an encouragement to not let the awareness of one's dark side contribute to it controlling you and preventing you from doing what God has called you to do.

[Garland]

While I would be interested to hear other opinions on politics, I think that it would be dangerous for the unity of the board.

It seems like it could be discussed if people didn't make statements such as "Obama is a Muslim." If we discussed more objective territory like maybe merits and morals of laws or policies rather than bashing people, it might be possible, but all it takes is a person posting a personal attack, conspiracy theory, etc. to start a flame war.

To sum it up, it would be great if we could discuss things like politics civilly, but that is probably out of reach for an online community which is trying to avoid divisiveness. I do also appreciate the theological discussions and hope they continue to stay civil.

[Nate]

If we discussed more objective territory like maybe merits and morals of laws or policies

See the porn thread that just got locked the other day.

It still wouldn't work.

[K. Ayato]

Nate makes a good point in referencing that thread. Even threads addressing morals and ethics would be subject to personal attack and maybe flame wars due to the fact that most of us have our own personal morals and codes of ethics. What's all right for one may be offensive to another.

While I strongly hold to the Romans 14 approach (in doing your best to keep from offending someone newer in the faith), it would be a challenge for all of us in the realm of political discussion or even morals.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I don't think that you really can divide politics from theology. It all relates to what's wrong or right in the Bible.

But, I think we might just take it slow getting into politics.

You know me. You know I'm an exceptionally liberal Democrat.

And I'm a Conservative (though, in some cases, I've been considered anarchist XD) Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian. I kinda know about that alienation you feel on a Christian forum.

Much less innocuous ideas and discussions have created schisms in churches. Two can't walk together unless they agree. I've been here at CAA for a long time. I don't want to see it fall apart.

Hey, what about a spot on the forum page for politics and theology?

Like "Christian Growth" and "Roleplay" give it its own section that people can hide if they want. Perhaps its own Mod to make sure things don't get ugly.

[Hiryu]

I'll agree with the 99% of other people who say politics should not be allowed on this board. As christians, we should try to share our love with everyone and politics can cause a lot of grief (Although ironically religion can as well).

I don't think that they're trying to "censor" you, Smartypants, they just don't want anything bad to happen to this forum. I believe that the mods and admins here are trustworthy in ensuring that the rules are enforced and keeping the peace.

I think that if people don't want a thread locked, they should be able to talk to a mod or admin about it. Perhaps if we shared our thoughts with them, they may be so gracious as to re-open the thread.

I also think there has been one or two threads that have been locked prematurely.

[shooraijin]

See the porn thread that just got locked the other day.

It still wouldn't work.

More to the point, there is no easy way to draw and maintain a line that fine or subtle.

[Yamamaya]

As I see it this is an awesome thread.

So I am Protoman. Excellent, truly excellent.

[bigsleepj]

Bigsleep, you make a very strong case. And it seems true. Theology would be far less heated than politics. Perhaps because politics is far less personal than religion is (as in it's global).

Politics are personal. Some people identify strongly with their parties / ideologies so much that it gets intertwined with their religious beliefs. Whether the road came through the church directly of through the political party, I don't know. Maybe its different roads for different people. Fact is, politics make people, even smart people, do incredibly stupid things.

To get back to the cause of the breakdown of a thriving forum, part of the problem was that political discussions were always allowed. The thing is it took one subject to spark this flame war, something that was divisive. I think in my original post I made it sound more innocuous than it really was, but some Christians on the site argued that Christians can't support it, and other somehow managed to justify it in some creepy, ridiculous way. Like a small rock setting an avalanche down hill it just kept getting bigger and bigger and kept branching into more directions. The fact is that when a person wants to believe in their political party (which is folly, even for reasonably good parties) they defend it, tooth and nail, to the hilt because maybe they see it as an extension of their beliefs / character. Not everyone wants to back down after they put their money on a horse. Bad metaphor, but you get my drift.

Nonetheless I do wish it's something that can be even somewhat more openly brought about. Nonetheless I'm still fully game for theology. That and more leniency towards thread-locks.

As long as its not politics, I'm all for it.

[Nate]

I don't think that you really can divide politics from theology. It all relates to what's wrong or right in the Bible.

I agree to a point...I don't think that say, voting on whether or not to name a groundhog an official state treasure is related to what's right or wrong in the Bible. :p But I understand what you mean.

Anyway the problem is what Shao mentioned right here. Everyone on here (or at least mostly everyone I hope) bases their political thoughts on their faith. The problem comes in on how you interpret the Bible. I mentioned my political leanings earlier and believe it or not, they're based on what I feel the Bible teaches...and pretty much everyone here interprets the Bible differently from me.

So what I'm saying is that it would get ugly fast, because it wouldn't just be politics that would be discussed after a bit. It would turn into "Well this policy is wrong because Jesus said this" and then the other person would say "No but Jesus MEANT this and you're interpreting it wrong" and while theological discussions are allowed at the moment to a small degree, I don't think we need to allow something quite that heated. It'd get ugly fast.

[Garland]

Point taken. I can see how people's interpretations of Scripture would still cause it to fail.

[MomentOfInertia]

I think CAA should not have political discussions because, people's opinions are just too strong, and it will lead to ever building arguments. there is a reason most political sites lean heavily in one direction or the other.

especially with the current tempestuous political climate.

You say that as if its an unusual condition.

I would go so far as to support the addition of a link to an external political forum (much like our current link to theologyweb), but without significant training in how to engage in delimited (semi)political discussions without contributing to emotional thread meltdowns, I don't think CAA as a community can host open political discussions.

This would be a good idea, if you can find a mild enough site.


Just my two cents.

[mechana2015]

You say that as if its an unusual condition.

I think there are current elements in the political climate that push the aggressiveness further now than, say, 10 or 15 years ago.

[Rusty Claymore]

YES CAA has in the past had many issues with this, but CAA before is not CAA today.

Sorry but, it was a group of humans then, and it's still a group of humans now. I don't believe there is any intrinsic difference...

It just takes dedication from every single one of us here to decide to do our part.

Ganbatte, but, I personally don't think everyone will. As a lot of people have now stated, Politics are too hot. Everyone has something they will go to war over, simply because they belive it is of vital importance. Being someone who holds rather extremist views (the kind that used to be standard 50 + years ago...) I cannot join political discussions involving certain controversies, because I belive in the objective truth against which they war. Of course, I usually avoid such topics and just don't get involved at all, but there are some topics I can not just sit quietly about. And everyone here is the same. For example: this thread. Mods have given their reasons many times, yet there are those who believe it is worth fighting for, and have promised that they will continue fighting for open political and theological discussion indefinately.

I may tread some toes here, but it is not my intent too: The premise of this thread goes against it's own argument. It states that the users will maintain reasonable behavior in respect towards debates of controversial topics, yet in it's own topic, users are aproaching in an all or nothing manner, somewhat akin to claiming the only correct theological POV... even though the Mods have said that they are working on it, the topic is still being pressed.
It just seems to conflict itself, is all...

[mechana2015]

Politics will also be trollbait like nothing else. I don't even think theology is as heavy trollbait as political discussion.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Shao, what does this label even mean?

Conservative Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian

The whole political angle of religion is largely foreign to me (it's rather different in Australia).

[Nate]

I belive in the objective truth against which they war.

And see, in this thread itself, right here, we have an example of why we can't allow political discussion.

[Midori]

I think I am going to close this thread, for various reasons, not the least of which is that it poses a large temptation for those who are against open theological discussion to cause a stink just to prove their point. Also, we've had like three threads about this when we could have had just the one. If you want to tell us what you think from now on, please do it over PM or something, or just sit patiently and wait for us to finish our decision process. It's been slow because of the holidays and work, but we're about to make some changes probably this coming week. Thanks for your attention.

EDIT: People have told me that this post sounds kind of biased or unfair. I didn't intend to be, so please put up with my imperfect use of language. I was a little annoyed about the issue and it kind of showed through. Thanks everyone for letting us know what you think about this and trying to do what's best. I'm glad to be able to serve such a vibrant and participatory community. I really mean it, and I'm sorry my post came off as just plain **** off.