Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have no problem with discussions about most anything. I am willing
    to learn and or reaffirm my faith. As an example, I am really
    and honestly interested in the goddess discusion......I most likely
    wouldn't change my own beliefs....but...I'm still interested in
    others idea's.
    
    Although it may seem "strange" or a contradiction....it makes sense
    to me. I really feel that the ability to listen and discuss other
    views is a sign of maturity. I'm working on my maturity.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 658.0 by BUSY::DKATZ:

>                         -< So, what *CAN* we discuss? >-
> 
>     Actually, I'll do it myself...
>     
>     * What is permissable to discuss on this file?
  
        Isn't this another "processing" topic -- do we need another?


        To answer your question "What is permissible to discuss on
        this file?":

        Subject to the general Digital corporate policies (and
        civility!), anything that the writer believes has any
        relationship to Christianity is "permissible to discuss" in
        this conference.

        Of course, opposing writers are free to state why they think
        such a thing has no relationship to Christianity, as part of
        that same freedom.

        As strange as this may seem at times, you as a participant
        can write almost anything related in any way to Christianity,
        but anyone else is free to write that you have no right to do
        so.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    It may well belong in processing -- I have no objections to moderators
    moving it if they feel it belongs there.
    
    Just one question: I know people have the right to say that, but is it
    really fair when discussion after discussion becomes "that is a
    Christian Perspective" and the string becomes a discussion of whether
    or not people should even *discuss* the subject as opposed to
    discussing the subject?  It effectively scuttles the basenote.
    
    Marc:
    
    Thank you -- I actually figured that's how you feel from your previous
    notes.  I appreciate and respect your take on things.
    
    Daniel

    One of the people who frequently engages in the derailing of topics in
    C-P has made no secret, in this notes file and in at least one other,
    of his hostility to this conference.  His guerrilla tactcs here are thus
    completely consistent with that attitude.

    -- Mike

re Note 658.3 by BUSY::DKATZ:

>     Just one question: I know people have the right to say that, but is it
>     really fair when discussion after discussion becomes "that is a
>     Christian Perspective" and the string becomes a discussion of whether
>     or not people should even *discuss* the subject as opposed to
>     discussing the subject?  It effectively scuttles the basenote.
  
        Daniel,

        I expect that there will be a certain noise level in any
        discussion, and I tend to ignore it.

        I am afraid that it will be very hard, in practice, to be
        even-handed and as bias-free as humanly possible if a
        moderator had to make a call whether objections to discussion
        have gone to the point of killing the discussion.

        Certainly, outright endless repetition of the same point is
        out of order.  But typically we don't do anything about that
        because 1) it actually happens very often in the course of
        many discussions, and 2) how does one distinguish between a
        repeating of a point and attempts (well- and ill-intended)
        at clarification and elaboration?  Rarely is the disruptive
        repetition simply reposted verbatim.

        Bob

    Hi again, Bob --
    
    Thanks for the input.  I suppose I can only really draw on my own
    experiences here, but I think I can detect a distinction.
    
    I hope they don't mind my using them again as examples, but here goes.
    
    I re-read string 554.* on Pre-Christian religions and look at the
    discussion between Collis and myself and other participants and I see a
    really interesting thing: it is a *discussion*  I wrote things with
    which Collis has serious objections, but instead of merely saying "That
    isn't Christian (aka: How dare you?), he was willing to participate in
    a discussion...even though time constraints meant it was brief.
    
    Also in note 91.* a few months back, Jill and I had serious
    disagreements over how own goes about using scripture to back up
    personal moral belief.  Although that exchange got regrettably heated,
    we were both participating in a *discussion*  Ask questions.  Offer
    ideas.  Answer questions.
    
    In both cases, I had and still have major disagreements with both of
    them, but I admire and respect their willingness to *discuss* those
    difference.  It's consistant with what Marc said earlier in this
    string.
    
    As a counter example, look at what happened very rapidly in both
    strings 654.* and 573.*  I see a marked difference.  Instead of
    discussing religious and cosmological differences, the strings became
    discussion as to whether or not the discussion ought to be happening in
    the first place.
    
    A few weeks ago, there was a discussion on "narrow-mindedness."  To me,
    "narrow-minded" does not mean "doesn't accept my perspective"  If that
    were the case, we are ALL narrow minded.  To me, narrowness is not
    disagreement but a near total unwillingness to even let a discussion
    occur if it does not adhere to your perspective.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

Note 658.6

>    I hope they don't mind my using them again as examples, but here goes.

Your conduct has been exemplary, Daniel.
    
>    A few weeks ago, there was a discussion on "narrow-mindedness."  To me,
>    "narrow-minded" does not mean "doesn't accept my perspective"  If that
>    were the case, we are ALL narrow minded.

Truly spoken.

>    To me, narrowness is not
>    disagreement but a near total unwillingness to even let a discussion
>    occur if it does not adhere to your perspective.

There do exist notesfiles which build such constraints right into their
policies.

Richard