I had been away from this message board for a while and was catching up on what had been discussed. I came across the heated communications that took place with Steve.

If anyone is interested, I would like us to reflect upon them in light of Christian love.

Were the feelings, thoughts, words and actions of this community loving toward Steve?

I bring this up not to bring judgement against anyone, but to see if there are lessons we can learn as a Christian community from the event.

In Christ's love,

John

Those are good questions, John, which I try to keep before me in moderating these threads. What you and others don't know is what I was hearing via Private Messages and e-mail, some of which was positively insulting. Efforts were made through these additional contacts to address the problems, but were unsuccessful. I bounced things off of a couple of other forum members to see if my perception of things wasn't too skewed, and in the end decided that the problem of trolling exceeded any benefits from the input gained. If I receive a conciliatory e-mail from Steve and we can come to an understanding about boundaries on certain threads, he will be welcomed back.

Phil

Were the feelings, thoughts, words and actions of this community loving toward Steve?

�Loving� comes in many different forms, but I don�t consider rolling over and disavowing all that one believes to be a form of it. However your message is a good reminder that we can look behind any perceived disagreements and know that there is still a good human being behind them. We may even turn the other cheek occasionally if we recognize that developing a relationship and healing the other is more important than winning an argument. But if the other party is insincere or is simply incapable of speaking beyond rigid beliefs then one of the most loving things one can do is to try and get the other to �lighten up� just a bit. If every obnoxious, angry or dogmatic person had someone there to mirror back their behavior instead of ignoring it then they would have the greatest of friends, whether they knew it or not.

I would love to have some new conversations with Steve but conversation is pointless if it does not allow for nuance and discovery. Opening oneself up � truly � can be a scary thing, but when among the �tolerant� (I hate that word � see another thread), as there certainly is at Shalom Place, then if one has a problem �making friends� then one should take a good look in the mirror. Steve, it�s not so much what you believe about the Trinity, it�s that you allow no room for people to have other opinions. We can love you from here till next Tuesday but it�s just like someone who keeps making prank phone calls and hangs up. We never get a chance to do get beyond �hello.�

Steve has an open invitation from Phil to simply apologize (and I think he should) and come join the discussions. Hell, I�m one of the dumbest SOB�s on the planet. I make tons of mistakes. And I�m simply amazed that there are people who can overlook them and still see me as something more than what I say. This is something I�m still in the process of learning. But they�re all here, Steve, at SP. Are you sincerely looking for stimulating conversation or did you just pop in to tell us how wrong we are? If we�re wrong then there are friendlier ways of dialoging then just spouting Bible versus. And what if you�re wrong? Has it occurred to you that life is a constant learning process and that being wrong is the norm? Absolute truths are wonderful but people are more important. I understand that you�ve probably had words jammed down your throat so you above all should know that others don�t like it any better. All is forgiven. No hard feelings. The cheek is turned. Take a chance a dip your toe back into the water. I�m trapped right now where I am and have the greatest sympathy for anyone in a similar situation. Maybe you can help me!

Phil,

In your opinion, what boundaries do you feel Steve crossed? (I am not suggesting he did not cross any, I just want to better understand what harm you perceived Steve was committing)

You used the term "trolling". I am unfamiliar with it in the context of message boards. Could you tell me what you mean when you use it?

John

quote:

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:

�Loving� comes in many different forms, but I don�t consider rolling over and disavowing all that one believes to be a form of it.

Brad, I agree with you that love does not demand us to compromise ourselves. That is one of the things I love about Jesus. He is consistently true to himself in God, and to God's will for him. I have quite a bit of experience with choosing to compromise myself for the sake of false peace.

I could have chosen not to begin this topic in order to maintain a false peace between myself and the members of this community. To have done so would have compromised myself and would have gone against what I believe to be the leading of the Holy Spirit.

You wrote in your reply above that you believe Steve needs to apologize. To whom do you believe he owes an apology, and for what do you believe he should apologize? (This may seem like I am asking you to state the obvious, but it will help me to better understand your position)

John

To whom do you believe he owes an apology, and for what do you believe he should apologize?

I�ll start by apologizing to Steve if I was too harsh in any way. As for whom he should apologize to and for what�he needs to look into his own heart to answer that.

I have quite a bit of experience with choosing to compromise myself for the sake of false peace.

I think I invented that concept. Instead of speaking my mind, saying what should be said at the time, I just either clam up altogether or let it build up and then lash out too harshly. Anger must not be expressed. We must not offend those around us or they will no longer like us. Blah blah blah. And I�m struggling with that even now. When one starts to change, even if just a little, it will be a very rude awakening for some when I start to speak my mind. No doubt I will go overboard a bit sometimes (it will certainly seem that way to anyone who �knows� me) but tough expletive deleted (rhymes with kitty).

John, the boundaries issue consists in the fact that Steve initially started a thread in which he emphasized that Christians had it all wrong about the Trinity, that the Bible says nothing about this, please go read this web site that will straighten you all out. Several of us replied to the content of his posts, and to the info on the web site. His responses never really recognized our content as he kept on with the same message. So I closed the thread and stated why. That's a boundary. Then I opened another thread for sharing about the meaning of the Trinity--i.e. "what difference does it make." Here comes Steve, singing the same song from the previous thread. I reminded him that we'd been around the block on that, and this one was about the meaning of the Trinity. He persisted. He was warned to stop, and he then followed by saying he wasn't going to let me off the hook so easily, that Constantine's shoddy character is connected with the doctrine of the Trinity. Enough! The boundary of the thread topic and the moderator's request to honor this was discounted--again!

In Internet parlance, a troll is a combination of the slimy mythical monster who lives in the dark and comes out to scare people, and an angler who trolls for fish. Internet trolls thrive on derailing discussions by asking the same questions again and again. They don't listen to any feedback given, and seem to want to annoy more than discuss or learn. E.g., they drop into a Macintosh discussion forum with a post to the effect that "Macs suck, Windows rule." They like seeing people get stirred up by this, as it makes them feel powerful and significant--e.g., strokes their egos and brings them attention. If that's true for a Mac forum, can you imagine the effect of dropping into a Christian forum saying in essence that "The Christian Trinity sucks, and I know what's right." Ideally, a forum learns to just ignore a Troll, so the Troll moves on. Sometimes they just need a little help moving on, however, so that's what I did.

I hope this helps, John. I don't boot people off this discussion board for no reason--only three so far. As you can see, Steve is still getting a lot of attention here, but I've been willing to discuss the matter to help you and perhaps others feel more at home here. I see that Brad had given you some good feedback as well. Does my action make more sense now?

I just wanted to say that my father, a devout Christian and a professor at a leading Christian university made this quote: "truth never fears a challenge." (Dr. Charles Murphy) We must be mindful to always act and communicate in love, but we do not have to excuse rude or intolerant behavior. I love discussion and debate, and firmly believe that if something it true it will hold up under any scrutiny and any examination. That said, to be belligerent or disrespctful serves no one and I think Phil was justified in taking the actions he did.

Hi John, et al,

I tend to agree with Brad that we have every right to defend our beliefs... and in fact are called to. This is what was irritated me in the discussion with Steve.... not that he shouldn't be allowed his beliefs or respected for them, but that he did not seem to return that courtesy.
He wanted us to listen to, ponder, accept his point/ his beliefs, but was unwilling to do the same for ours. That is not a discussion and trying to address it as such is pointless.
I am one he contacted off site and I read his material and responded honestly and openly and I think respectfully... again off site. The doctrine of the Trinity was one I struggled with for quite a long time and so I could/ can identify with others who have difficulty here. It soon became apparent that Steve was not one of these but that he had made up his own mind and was either trying to convince me that I and the rest of Christianity was wrong or was simply having fun pushing everyone's buttons.
Did we/I deal with Steve in Christian Love? Probably not. Maybe we would have been better off simply ignoring his posts and continuing the discussion without him, but then that again is not exactly showing Christian Love either is it?
I think Phil did the right thing. He gave him options and left him the choice. If you want to play with us, you have to abide by the rules.
Peace,
Wanda