Concerning Our Dialogue

[tpdncr4christ]

So we've had a lovely couple of weeks here right? I'd like to open a dialogue concerning how we should dialogue, much like Andrew's "How should we dialogue?" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2374) but with a more updated look; taking to heart recent postings.

I've noticed Keltic said he is, or has of late, just been emotionally drained by the onslaught of posts on this forum. I can understand where he is coming from, and I feel as if most of us are suffering from the same fatigue as Keltic. However, I do not see this exhaustion as an excuse to treat some of the new members here as we have been treating them.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I feel the need to reiterate for the umpteenth time that Non-violence comes off in more than just physical action; it is a practice that employs our diction and tone, as well as body language. Our word choice here on the forums can temper the reactions of the new members towards both a positive and a negative light. Regardless of our exhaustion, regardless of our fatigue, it is our obligation as participating members of this forum to show Christ's love and light through our hospitality. It is our duty to react calmly and thoughtfully to each post, in a thoroughly non-violent manner.

Another complaint I hear is the, "We've heard this argument a thousand times before." I don't see why this should deter us from answering their question. It doesn't matter whether or not we've been presented with these arguments before, to the new members it is there first time with these arguments. Rather than shuffling them off to go read another post, or another thread in which we have already discussed their question, could we possibly respond on a more personal note, treating each person like a person, not just an argument we've heard before? A new member is constantly put off by replies that lead them to go do homework by reading more and more posts. They come looking for specific answers to specific questions, it should be our job to give them answers to their questions, without just referring them another thread, even if the answer isn't the one they are looking for. We are called to be patient and understanding, not curt and tired.

Look at each new member like a challenge, a test of sort from God. He won't give us anything we can't handle, right? Each new member can provide his or her own perspective, one through which we can learn and grow. It should be up to us to present the example on posting etiquette.

I think the main problem is, now don't everyone jump on me for this, we are getting too offended at these posts. You can't take every ignorant comment to heart, no one can. You have to take it upon yourself to welcome these new comers with open arms and a loving soul. You can't take out a sword and strike down every comment tossed your way, you'll cut your own arms off. Rather than getting offended, realize that these people are trying to understand where we come from and our own interpretations of the arguments presented to us. Don't jump down their throats if they ask us to justify ourselves. If you don't feel the need to justify yourself to this person, then don't. Don't get so offended at ignorance. Calmly respond, and lovingly open dialogue with them, and maybe things will go smoother.

This is mainly my suggestions, I'd love to hear all of your comments about this. Hopefully we can perfect our dialogging skills through this discussion, so we don't jump down other people's throats, and so they don't jump down ours. :love:

Austin

PS. This also reminded me of the Bible verse Mathew 11:28-30 Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light."

[keltic63]

Austin,

some of my hardest lessons to learn came not from a sweet-voiced grandmother serving me cookies and advice, but rather from a grumpy old man who told me the truth without any sugar-coating. Sometimes, it takes a whack on the side of the head, even if it is a metaphorical whack.

I've said it a few times today, and I'll say it again. If I have to say it in several different ways, I will. This was a learning experience for all of us here in the SF forums. Many of us are tired; that fatigue hit us hard, and it felt like we were inundated, especially in the past week, with voices that were here to spread anti-gay rhetoric. I am proud of the job we did; yes we could have done better.

One of the ways we could have done better was to have more of our regular members posting in those threads! And fewer members now criticizing the ways in which we engaged those oppressive voices.

[u-dog]

I think Austin might actually be right (unusual in one so young, I know). I think what he is getting at is the issue of "Emotional Reactivity" where a person reacts emotionally to a message they THINK they are hearing (or maybe one they heard a lot growing up) rather than actually RESPONDING to what a person is actually saying.

Thinking back on my own responses and on those of many of my friends here I think you can make the case that we have been emotionally reactive to some of our visitors. certainly that is understandable, but perhaps it isn't the most productive way for us to respond

Perhaps one solution would be to employ some skills that my wife and I have been using to deepen our emotional connection that are similar to active listening.

We could begin by modelling the kind of curiousity that we want to experience from them.

new person: "I want to know how you guys justify yourselves.

Us: "I wonder what you mean when you say "justify." Could you clarify that?"

[tpdncr4christ]

Our emotions, hurt, fear, anger, frustration and sheer pissed-off-ness is a very real part of being oppressed. I am not sure concealing that emotion is an honest way to dialogue. Don't we do people a disservice if we pretend to be nice all the time.

For example, when Kara got angry at the guy that wanted us to "justify ourselves". He threatened to leave, but he came back and actually "got it".

Good point. Let me rephrase. When Kara responded her post was filled with anger (Kara is not the only one, I myself have responded as such, her's is just the example at hand), this anger is usually enough to put off new members enough so that they don't come back. Thankfully, Kevin came back. Now, I'm not saying ignore these emotions, I'm saying don't let the emotions write your response. If you can calmly explain that you were hurt, we will have much more productive conversations. The tone of your post is what puts people off. Take a minute to calm down, to let go of your hurt to stay calm, so you can respond with a tone of love rather than anger. Does that make sense?

And Keltic, I'm not asking us to sugar coat it. I'm asking us to breathe before we post.

One of the ways we could have done better was to have more of our regular members posting in those threads! And fewer members now criticizing the ways in which we engaged those oppressive voices.

I'm sorry. I tend to push buttons, its what I do. :D

[u-dog]

I've said it a few times today, and I'll say it again. If I have to say it in several different ways, I will. This was a learning experience for all of us here in the SF forums. Many of us are tired; that fatigue hit us hard, and it felt like we were inundated, especially in the past week, with voices that were here to spread anti-gay rhetoric. I am proud of the job we did; yes we could have done better.

This is true. And I am also not ashamed of this community. We did our best in a challenging time... and we could do better... and I am confident that we will do better

One of the ways we could have done better was to have more of our regular members posting in those threads! And fewer members now criticizing the ways in which we engaged those oppressive voices.
We will do better precisely because we are having this conversation in which we are debriefing our experience. It seems unfair to me to come down hard on Austin simply because he is asking us to review our methods and attitudes.

I gotta go to bed. night all.

[keltic63]

We will do better precisely because we are having this conversation in which we are debriefing our experience. It seems unfair to me to come down hard on Austin simply because he is asking us to review our methods and attitudes.




and it also seems a bit unfair to either simply read those heated discussions without posting in them, or post very little in them, and then offer a critique of the performance of those members posting in those threads.

so here's some practical advice for us all from the 4 Step Journey (http://www.soulforce.org/article/566)

A follower of soulforce has one basic premise.
Our adversaries are not evil or hateful or insane. They are "Victims of Untruth" as we have been.
A follower of soulforce has one task.
Bring truth to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one method.
Show love (nonviolence) as you bringtruth to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one secret.
Accept suffering without retaliation or complaint as you bring truth inlove to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one goal.
Reconciliation with our adversary.


Perhaps this would have helped us when we let our emotions get the best of us.

[Dash]

I think this would be an excellent discussion...the kind we could and probably should keep ongoing. I have to say, the more I study Gandhi's life, work and philosophy, the more I am concerned with the violence in me rather than from others.

That's sounds kinda silly, maybe, but it's just the way I think. Ever since I got here, someone (Daniel probly) has been saying, "be the change you want to see in the world". It has stuck with me.

Anger is where Arun Gandhi begins his book Legacy of Love which records his own education in nonviolence as taught by his great-souled grandfather.

Anger is a very powerful emotion, an emotion that, when misused or abused, has the capacity to create unimaginable and often devastating crises. As a result of society's ignorance and fear of anger, we have chosen not to explore it possibilities as a practical and constructive force. Each individual, consequently, finds his or her own destructive way of responding to anger.

Anger, however, is a force that can motivate individuals to good as well as evil.

...

By misapplying anger we not only destroy our relationships with others, we also wound ourselves in ways that are difficult to heal. It is not difficult, however, to use anger intelligently, with self-discipline, and with better understanding and appreciation of its profound power. If we were not so ashamed of anger, we could easily learn to channel it into positive action.

Probably a hundred times during an average working day each of us is called upon to make decisions about the anger that we feel. Should we consume our lives with angry outbursts when faced with conflict, or would it be better to use the energy positively, so that we and those who surround us can learn and grow with the experience?

~Legacy of Love: My Education in the Path of Nonviolence. pp 23-24

Later in this little memoir, Arun describes how his grandfather made him keep an "anger journal" as a way of observing his anger and beginning to take control of it.

By the way, I bought this little book from one of Soulforce's online auctions. It is signed by Arun to Mel White...that makes me incredibly happy!

The ability to respond to anger nonviolently will come to you through constant practice.

~Legacy of Love, p 73

We'll never lack for practice around here, with the challenging visitors we get! Lucky us!! :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:

[I admit, I wounded myself on Blossom...I wounded myself--she never hurt me, but my own anger did. I'm very cautious about engaging these days. No criticisms to those stronger and more resilient than I, but I do think this could be a very good thread if it would "stick" around.]

[Daniel]

The matter of how to follow the teachings of nonviolence has been much on my mind since I joined the forum- and not just because of some vaunted display of altruism. I do have a selfish reason, which amounts to learning how to engage my own fundamentalist family in a way that doesn't leave me feeling like I am left holding the bag. As they say, the way of peace starts at home. (What have I learned so far? That ya gotta love'em even though they can't love ya back in a way that floats your boat. No expectations. )

I think Steve's point needs more consideration. Few are we who have been TRAINED in nonviolence. Joe Brummer started a thread or two on the matter, and sadly, there was little interest in pursuing those initiatives. Perhaps the time has arrived. Whether it is a thread or a resource tab somewhere, I suggest that we give some thought as to the 'how' - the practical stuff- in regards to nonviolence. (My sense is that most of us have a good sense of the 'why'....Do Unto Others....)

This 'how' can be a simple as some suggestions for dialogue. One such suggestion was made on a previous thread.

Don't post when you are angry.

(thank you Joe)

This kind of suggestion can help a person at least acknoweldge that one is angry. And if we can't acknowledge what we are experiencing, honestly and forthrightly, without glossing over it, how can we choose that which leads to compassion and loving action?

I would add another.

Examine yourself before you examine another.

~

A short story.

Yesterday, I went out to the market. And all the while I was thinking about various conversations and posts here- and nonviolence. As I was leaving the market, I got to a busy intersection (this is NYC ok?) and a big black SUV went through the intersection against the light- right into 6 of us crossing the street. We let that person go. But following that driver was a cab - right on the SUV's tail - that was also intent on getting through the intersection. Zoom. Three of us were brushed by the cab which came to a halt, nearly knocking me over with two heavy bags of groceries. My reaction? I kicked the cab door hard and yelled: "You don't have the light!" Self-examination? Heck no! I was in 'react' mode. Sure. I could claim self-defense and all that stuff. But you know what? I could have walked away. I could have leaned over and said something in a calm voice. But nooooo. Within 5 seconds I was engaged in a yelling match with a Pakistani in a turban- who was yelling in another language.

It may be perverse, but I started laughing at myself as I walked home. So much for the principles of nonviolence! Way to go Daniel! You know how to show'em.

Why is it that when we decide that we are going to get better at something we always get tested? It's like the 'Universe/God' says: "You want that? Really? Let's just see how serious you are."

~

The fight-or-flight reaction may be human. It may have been what has belped us survive as a species. But if we don't learn to master it, we are going to blow ourselves to smithereens.

[Zerbie]

Good discussion, guys. :applause: :applause: :applause:

I was gonna say "I'm with Austin," but well, I'm with all o' ya.

Everyone's right. :lol:

I don't (usually) post when angry. I could, and if I did, I would be saying the MEANEST things. :eek: So I log off and go do something else for the rest of the day. Inevitably I stop feeling angry after a little while, and then if I decide I STILL want to respond to something, I can do so from a calm place.

Austin, thank you, you're absolutely correct. We need to engage PEOPLE, not ISSUES. I've seen the two get mixed up all the time, even here on this website. Talk to the person, not the issue. Talk to the present circumstance, not the time when Aunt Betty said you were going to Hell.

However one thing that puzzles me, Austin, is your take that everyone was "offended" by the justification request. Austin, sweetie, NO ONE needs to justify their existence. It has nothing to do with personal offense. The sense that straights have that gays should have to justify their existence is just. . . . *inconceivable.* Nothing to do with being offended - just point it out to that person that their mind is playing games with them into thinking that some of God's creatures somehow owe a justification (implication: they do not belong). Just point it out. ;)

One thing I've observed since I was, oh, about 6, is gay people being oh-so-willing to justify themselves and be so gentle and patient, like saints explaining themselves time after time, again and again, to people who had been trained to believe gays OWED them some justification. I would watch it with my heart sinking that anyone would feel obliged to justify their existence. As if they did not really belong, and by explaining it enough times they could gain the acceptance that the very existence of the question would forever prevent them from obtaining. The QUESTION is the problem.

You see it even more clearly from outside if it isn't *you* who is being asked to justify. Trust me: as a married chick with a husband, standing next to our gay friends, I see this clearer and brighter all the time. The question is the problem.

Go ahead and explain, converse, welcome, and teach, Austin, since you are called to do so and you have both the intellect and the heart to do it. But do so KNOWING that you OWE NO ONE any justification.

[Daniel]

I would watch it with my heart sinking that anyone would feel obliged to justify their existence. As if they did not really belong, and by explaining it enough times they could gain the acceptance that the very existence of the question would forever prevent them from obtaining. The QUESTION is the problem.


Ah....you made me remember something- a saying I heard somewhere.

To ask for permission is to be denied.

[BrentRichards]

So we've had a lovely couple of weeks here right? I'd like to open a dialogue concerning how we should dialogue, much like Andrew's "How should we dialogue?" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2374) but with a more updated look; taking to heart recent postings.

I've noticed Keltic said he is, or has of late, just been emotionally drained by the onslaught of posts on this forum. I can understand where he is coming from, and I feel as if most of us are suffering from the same fatigue as Keltic. However, I do not see this exhaustion as an excuse to treat some of the new members here as we have been treating them.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I feel the need to reiterate for the umpteenth time that Non-violence comes off in more than just physical action; it is a practice that employs our diction and tone, as well as body language. Our word choice here on the forums can temper the reactions of the new members towards both a positive and a negative light. Regardless of our exhaustion, regardless of our fatigue, it is our obligation as participating members of this forum to show Christ's love and light through our hospitality. It is our duty to react calmly and thoughtfully to each post, in a thoroughly non-violent manner.

Another complaint I hear is the, "We've heard this argument a thousand times before." I don't see why this should deter us from answering their question. It doesn't matter whether or not we've been presented with these arguments before, to the new members it is there first time with these arguments. Rather than shuffling them off to go read another post, or another thread in which we have already discussed their question, could we possibly respond on a more personal note, treating each person like a person, not just an argument we've heard before? A new member is constantly put off by replies that lead them to go do homework by reading more and more posts. They come looking for specific answers to specific questions, it should be our job to give them answers to their questions, without just referring them another thread, even if the answer isn't the one they are looking for. We are called to be patient and understanding, not curt and tired.

Look at each new member like a challenge, a test of sort from God. He won't give us anything we can't handle, right? Each new member can provide his or her own perspective, one through which we can learn and grow. It should be up to us to present the example on posting etiquette.

I think the main problem is, now don't everyone jump on me for this, we are getting too offended at these posts. You can't take every ignorant comment to heart, no one can. You have to take it upon yourself to welcome these new comers with open arms and a loving soul. You can't take out a sword and strike down every comment tossed your way, you'll cut your own arms off. Rather than getting offended, realize that these people are trying to understand where we come from and our own interpretations of the arguments presented to us. Don't jump down their throats if they ask us to justify ourselves. If you don't feel the need to justify yourself to this person, then don't. Don't get so offended at ignorance. Calmly respond, and lovingly open dialogue with them, and maybe things will go smoother.

This is mainly my suggestions, I'd love to hear all of your comments about this. Hopefully we can perfect our dialogging skills through this discussion, so we don't jump down other people's throats, and so they don't jump down ours. :love:

Austin

PS. This also reminded me of the Bible verse Mathew 11:28-30

There's an expression here in Pennsylvania Dutch Country: "Too soon olt, too late shmart!" So how'd you get so shmart so young? (I mean that, not being sarcastic!)

Keep this stuff coming!

[u-dog]

and it also seems a bit unfair to either simply read those heated discussions without posting in them, or post very little in them, and then offer a critique of the performance of those members posting in those threads.

Is it unfair for the designated driver to drive home after an evening of heavy drinking? One of our "party" sat this one out and, being outside of the "fog of war" noticed some things about our approach and our method and brought them to our attention. Noticing is a very useful activity and one for which I depend upon my friends. Consequently we are having this VERY edifying conversation about anger, hate, and non-violence.

[Joe Brummer]

Here is a suggestion:

The nonviolent life has many dimensions and steps. Four of these steps are:

* Centering ourselves;
* Articulating and sharing our piece of the truth;
* Receiving the other’s piece of the truth; and
* Agreeing on a new way.

Center, Articulate, Receive, and Agree – CARA, for short – is a process for engaging the world and its inhabitants nonviolently.

“Cara” means “face” in Spanish. The CARA process invites us to meet others, including our opponents, face-to-face in a nonviolent way. ”Cara” also means “dear one” in Latin and Italian. CARA encourages us to face all people – and especially those with whom we are in conflict -- in a constructive and openhearted manner, regarding them the way we regard the dearest and most important person in our lives.

This is not always easy. That is why we need to learn and consciously choose to use this process, over and over. Fortunately or not, we are offered an opportunity to practice this virtually from moment to moment.

Putting each of the following steps into practice can be simple or complex. It will often require ingenuity and persistence and allies, especially where no level playing field exists – that is, where there are power differences between the parties. It can be carried out in a moment, or it can take years. It can be used in interpersonal conflicts, and it can be used in the process of arduous social change.

What is presented here is the framework; it is up to each of us to find creative and appropriate ways to put each step into practice in whatever context or situation in which we find ourselves.

Read more (http://paceebene.org/pace/practical-skills-and-tools-for-nonviolent-living/four-steps-cent)

[dewdrop_world]

Does anybody out there watch The Dog Whisperer (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/dogwhisperer/)?

If you have, you know that he is much more than a dog trainer or rehabilitator or psychologist. He's actually a master of non violence, probably without setting out to be. When he deals with problem dogs, he never gets angry, never yells, never hits the dog. He speaks so often of "calm, assertive energy" that it threatens to become a cliche, but in the practice of it, it's really deep. He harmonizes with the dog's energy and with the natural way dogs socialize to give the dog -- calmly, persistently -- what it needs to move out of the states of fear or aggression into a more balanced, happier state of being. It is, as Thich Nhat Hanh, put it, "giving the gift of non-fear," which he says is the greatest gift anyone can give another.

It should go without saying that I don't intend to suggest that recent conservative visitors are like dogs who can be tamed with a raised finger and a quick "Shh" (if you watch the show, you know what I'm talking about). But, humans and dogs are both social mammals, and social mammals in general have instincts toward territoriality and dominance.

Territoriality - Most of the visitors who come to question the Equality Ride do so on the grounds that the Riders should not trespass on private property. Hmm.

Dominance - Soulforce's -- our -- position on sexual orientation is viewed as an unacceptable threat to the dominance of a particular worldview.

So, what I do wish to suggest is that when we are called upon to handle a fellow being who is driven by the need to establish territory and dominance, calm, assertive energy is what we really need. I tend more toward the calm side and am perhaps not assertive enough when needed. The natural tendency under stress is for assertiveness to turn into aggression -- which has happened here lately. This is something we have to learn to overcome if we want to give the visitors the gift of non-fear so that they can see us as we are, maybe for the first time.

I can say more but I'm out of time this morning --
James

[nmwolfboy]

Great thread! i feel i have such a long way to go in following the SF principles of non-violence. Reading others' thoughts here really helps. Thanks. :)

i definitely agree that responses here should strive not to be reactive, nor retributive. Using the technique of walking away from the computer when i'm writing from that place is something that helps me. Many times i've composed posts and hesitated over hitting the "Submit reply" button, ultimately choosing to not post. If only i did so in face to face interactions, i'd spend less time chewing on my own foot & apologizing to people i care about. :o

One of the most puzzling things for me involves being passionate, particularly when that involves anger. :smashy: In some of the recent posts here, and even in face to face forums i've participated in elsewhere, expressing anger (imo) has been a good thing. It wakes folks up, gets them to take a situation seriously, gets them to evaluate their own manner, gets them to face the impact of their own words, etc. So, while i wouldn't agree with attacking someone here in the SF forums, i also don't think that expressing anger in an assertive way necessarily runs counter to the principles of non-violence. Anger is a passion, one that can be creative & can change situations dramatically. Unfortunately, like any passion it can override our nobler instincts and be used to strike out.

i'm probably projecting my own fear into this thread, reading what's not there, but i don't think non-violence calls us to always be blissful and calm in our responses to people spouting oppression towards us, which surely does happen here from time to time. Anger and passion is not something to always be 'toned down' or avoided. For one thing, swallowed anger can turn inwards, which surely is perpetrating violence towards the self.

So how can i express passionate feelings, especially anger, without being violent to myself or others? Please note that i'm not talking about physical violence here, which i abhor. i'm talking about the use of words to express anger, without the intent to hurt or belittle. That's the question i'm puzzling over and need some help with.

Pax :dove:

scott

[tpdncr4christ]

So how can i express passionate feelings, especially anger, without being violent to myself or others? Please note that i'm not talking about physical violence here, which i abhor. i'm talking about the use of words to express anger, without the intent to hurt or belittle. That's the question i'm puzzling over and need some help with.

I know exactly what you are saying. I fully understand the power of words, and how they can be used as weapons as well as healers. If you don't feel like you are able to contribute to the discussion in a loving way then perhaps you should PM someone you know and trust, and ask them to stand in for you. That's the beauty of this forum. No one goes alone. We are allowed, by our sheer size and stature the luxury of tag teaming it out. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Say, "Hey Andy," or "Hey Zerbie could you check this out?" or "Kara, could you take a look at what this guy is saying?"

and it also seems a bit unfair to either simply read those heated discussions without posting in them, or post very little in them, and then offer a critique of the performance of those members posting in those threads.

Keltic, I'd just like to say I'm not trying to critique any performance. I personally don't respond to every thread because that would kill me. With all the stuff that I'm doing lately I just wouldn't be able to take it. So, I read the threads and watch other people respond. If I see something I feel I can add to, I add to it. But most of the time I don't want to talk to some of the older new members because I know they just won't listen to someone as young as me. So there's no real point in wasting my words on them now, is there?

[u-dog]

:lol: This just tickled my funny bone.

Can you help to understand what it was about my suggestion that tickled you Antony? Because I suggested it in all sincerity and didn't mean for it to be humorous. I'm wondering what you mean by "tickled your funny bone". Can you say more?



<<<<;) >>>>>>

[u-dog]

. But most of the time I don't want to talk to some of the older new members because I know they just won't listen to someone as young as me. So there's no real point in wasting my words on them now, is there?

I'm not going to blow sunshine up your skirt here, Boyo, but you are more than able to take on anybody who comes here. You should dive in wherever you think the Spirit is Leading. The rest of us have your back.

[BrentRichards]

In some of the recent posts here, and even in face to face forums i've participated in elsewhere, expressing anger (imo) has been a good thing.

Absolutely. What this reminds me of, though, is some basic counseling aggressiveness/assertiveness training. (Touchy feely warning!) ...

Non-aggressive assertiveness requires OWNING OUR OWN EMOTIONS. For example:

Aggressive: "You make me mad!"
Assertive: "When I hear you say that, I feel angry."

Aggressive: "You aren't hearing a word I say!"
Assertive: "When I listen to your response, I feel like you haven't understood me correctly."

Aggressive: "You're hateful!"
Assertive: "When you speak like that, I feel devalued, even hated."


Point is, like my mother and father always taught me: "It's not just what you say, it's how you say it." Is it wrong to say someone's hateful when they are? Probably not. Is it helpful? Also, probably not. If our goal is dialogue, we choose words that will be heard, not words that will be clever.

Now, if only I followed my own advice.

[Zerbie]

Great thread!

Using the technique of walking away from the computer when i'm writing from that place is something that helps me. Many times i've composed posts and hesitated over hitting the "Submit reply" button, ultimately choosing to not post. If only i did so in face to face interactions, i'd spend less time chewing on my own foot & apologizing to people i care about. :o

Super! You know you're going to start doing that in face to face situations, too, now that you've brought it to the forefront of your mind.

So how can i express passionate feelings, especially anger, without being violent to myself or others? Please note that i'm not talking about physical violence here, which i abhor. i'm talking about the use of words to express anger, without the intent to hurt or belittle. That's the question i'm puzzling over and need some help with.

Pax :dove:

scott

Well, like Austin said (and you alluded to way above) you don't have to reply in all scenarios. If a particular poster really angers you, maybe sit that one out. SOMEONE always steps up to the plate.

If you ARE going to reply, consider it this way.

Assume the best. Assume the person visiting and making a post - however badly they phrase things - has a positive intention ("Protecting" his school, defending a worldview, "helping" us by offering a religious viewpoint that has really helped her in her own life, etc).

Then, when pointing out what's offensive, painful, or misinformed about their statement, address not their surface attributes, but the purest, most noble part of their soul. Know that it IS there, however hard it is for us to see (sometimes admittedly impossible,) but it is always there. Address your words to the best of that person's spirit. You can be passionate then, because you are coming from a place of incredible respect, so you aren't going to write, "You a**h*le!" You are going to speak respectfully, with passion, to the best of the person. Once that's done, the ball's outta your court. You're done.

I'll be working on this skill myself. Wanna be practice buddies?

[nmwolfboy]

If you don't feel like you are able to contribute to the discussion in a loving way then perhaps you should PM someone you know and trust, and ask them to stand in for you. That's the beauty of this forum. No one goes alone.
Thanks for the reminder. :) i do tend to forget that, shockingly often in fact.

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Have you been talking to my mother???? :lol: That aphorism would be why so many of my friends & coworkers think of me as a quiet person. :o :shifty:

So, I read the threads and watch other people respond. If I see something I feel I can add to, I add to it. But most of the time I don't want to talk to some of the older new members because I know they just won't listen to someone as young as me. So there's no real point in wasting my words on them now, is there?
Well, don't forget that for every person who posts a response there are likely many lurkers reading & shaking their heads in agreement. Don't let us old folks shut you down!

Point is, like my mother and father always taught me: "It's not just what you say, it's how you say it."
So have you been talking with my mother, too?

Is it wrong to say someone's hateful when they are? Probably not. Is it helpful? Also, probably not. If our goal is dialogue, we choose words that will be heard, not words that will be clever.

Now, if only I followed my own advice.
And amen to that! :D All too frequently for my comfort my inner voice is telling me "Don't say that!!! Shut up!!! You're not adding anything to this discussion!!! You don't really mean that!!!" while what slides out of my mouth is a quickly stoppered pouring of vitriol. :whistleblower: More frequently i succeed in keeping my mouth shut, but then my head feels like its going to explode. :x If only the clarity & eloquence i sometimes am capable of, usually after a good meditation/prayer, were more the rule than the exception.


Assume the best. Assume the person visiting and making a post - however badly they phrase things - has a positive intention ("Protecting" his school, defending a worldview, "helping" us by offering a religious viewpoint that has really helped her in her own life, etc).

Then, when pointing out what's offensive, painful, or misinformed about their statement, address not their surface attributes, but the purest, most noble part of their soul. Know that it IS there, however hard it is for us to see (sometimes admittedly impossible,) but it is always there. Address your words to the best of that person's spirit. You can be passionate then, because you are coming from a place of incredible respect, so you aren't going to write, "You a**h*le!" You are going to speak respectfully, with passion, to the best of the person. Once that's done, the ball's outta your court. You're done.

I'll be working on this skill myself. Wanna be practice buddies?

Bless you, Zerbie. :love: i certainly could use the practice. ;) And your advice is very helpful.

i don't want to give the wrong impression - i don't go around irately tearing down everyone in my path. Quite the opposite. I'm much more likely to read posts without responding in online forums, and to listen without speaking in face-to-face ones. However, lately angry hurtful retorts have been getting closer to the tip of my tongue. This thread is really helpful for me, thanks to all the voices here.

Pax :dove:

scott

[Dash]

"Anger is good," Grandfather said, "and I am glad to see you can be moved to anger."

I thought he must be pulling my leg, but he was serious.

"Anger, you see, is to people what fuel is to an automobile. Without it, we would not be motivated to rise to any challenge, and life would be no more than mere existance. Anger is an energy that compels us to define what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust."

"Anger is also like electricity," Grandfather continued. "Electricity is powerful--so powerful, in fact, that it can cause devastating destruction if it is mishandled or abused. But if channeled properly and intelligently, it is highly useful to mankind."

~Legacy of Love, p 74

So Gandhi had the young Arun make lists of useful and destructive applications of electricity--which he easily did. Then he was asked to do the same for anger, but all he could think of was bad and violent ones because he had never considered any positive uses.

I can't say I'm in a much better position than that little boy that Arun was. I have a hard time with anger. In my experience...that is to say, for me...it is like a corrosive acid inside me. So I try to practice looking dispassionately on discussions and situations that anger me.

Some things that conservative anti-gay posters do that anger me:

1) ignore important points of rebuttal
2) adopt patronizing postures in regard to faith and morality
3) refuse to acknowledge the violence that is bred by hatred of, and "righteous" opposition to, homosexuality
4) blame the suppressed rather than the suppressors
5) compare our love to all things vile

[actually my chest is burning just naming these few things!!!]

I do not yet know how to use this anger to fuel a positive action, and I do not feel like I have any wisdom to counter the misinformation that we see so often in the world. Keep hoping I'll learn something, but it hasn't come to me yet. You'd think after hearing these same kinds of things from our challengers that I would be adequately prepared, but apparently I'm a dunce. :rolleyes:

[u-dog]

What about my idea of Relentless curiousity and wondering? What if we take time to draw out the poster in order to FULLY understand their argument. Eventually, if we have patients, the flaws will appear, Our passionate anger will have disappated and we can take advantage of the hole that we have discovered.

[tpdncr4christ]

We should also consider the connotations of words when we post, some words mean different things to different people. We have to recognize the tone of our post before we hit that submit reply button.

Could I be so bold as to suggest a charter or agreement of sort that members here can sign that states the rules by which we wish to dialogue? I've never seen the Four Step Journey before and I love it. All these quotes from Ghandi and such are fantastic. If we could compile all of these teachings into an agreement that we as members had the option to sign that might also ease the discussions here. I'm I making sense here? The document/article (I really don't know what to call it) would say something like "I recognize as a member of the SoulForce Dialoguers(Just throwing out ideas here...:D) that I will uphold the principles of Nonviolence in my postings by ..." Then if you want to sign it, just do like a digital signature by checking the box, then when you post in your signature it can say if you are or aren't part of the SoulForce Dialoguers or something. But that's just an idea. Get what I'm getting at? Kinda? Maybe?

[nmwolfboy]

We should also consider the connotations of words when we post, some words mean different things to different people. We have to recognize the tone of our post before we hit that submit reply button.

Could I be so bold as to suggest a charter or agreement of sort that members here can sign that states the rules by which we wish to dialogue? I've never seen the Four Step Journey before and I love it. All these quotes from Ghandi and such are fantastic. If we could compile all of these teachings into an agreement that we as members had the option to sign that might also ease the discussions here. I'm I making sense here? The document/article (I really don't know what to call it) would say something like "I recognize as a member of the SoulForce Dialoguers(Just throwing out ideas here...:D) that I will uphold the principles of Nonviolence in my postings by ..." Then if you want to sign it, just do like a digital signature by checking the box, then when you post in your signature it can say if you are or aren't part of the SoulForce Dialoguers or something. But that's just an idea. Get what I'm getting at? Kinda? Maybe?

i believe you'll find something along the lines of what you're suggesting if you explore the "About" and "Resources" links in the Soulforce website header.

Pax,

scott

[keltic63]

i believe you'll find something along the lines of what you're suggesting if you explore the "About" and "Resources" links in the Soulforce website header.

Pax,

scott



so here's some practical advice for us all from the 4 Step Journey (http://www.soulforce.org/article/566)
A follower of soulforce has one basic premise.
Our adversaries are not evil or hateful or insane. They are "Victims of Untruth" as we have been.
A follower of soulforce has one task.
Bring truth to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one method.
Show love (nonviolence) as you bringtruth to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one secret.
Accept suffering without retaliation or complaint as you bring truth inlove to the victims of untruth.
A follower of soulforce has one goal.
Reconciliation with our adversary.


Like I suggested earlier in this thread? ;)

[tpdncr4christ]

so why isn't it posted everywhere on the forums?
why do i have to look in the about and the resources to find this creed?

could we make it more visible, as well as make it able to say whether or not you are a follower of soulforce, or you are just a participant on the forums. ? is what i'm saying getting across?

[Daniel]

Dash suggested a 'stickie' in an earlier post on this thread. This might make the matter more apparent.

Again- I'm flogging my earlier suggestion in that the emphasis needs to be on practical as well as theoretical matters. Theory, for many people, is too vague even though it is very necessary. People, often, need something they can focus on in simple terms.

And while I value the 'steps', they are more theoretical than practical. Their focus is on being rather than doing. Of course, I know we have to 'be' in order to 'do', but the process from one to the other is not always so apparent. One has to have a means to get from one to the other. This means the person needs a point of focus.

Forgive me, but even the suggestions Joe has provided are weighted towards the theoretical.

* Centering ourselves;
* Articulating and sharing our piece of the truth;
* Receiving the other’s piece of the truth; and
* Agreeing on a new way.

For instance, how does one center one's self? It's a wonderful idea- and a most necessary one, but one must have a way to do this. A one or two line suggestion would be helpful ie. breath, go outside, meditate, say a prayer etc.

A blend of practical and theoretical is what I am advocating. A short document which would amount to the 101 of dialogue.

I hope this thread results in something more than a review which fades away until the next big who-knows-what.

See- I'm being pushy. But I hope it's good pushy. I want this stuff to work. In fact, I'm counting on it. No one can help us but ourselves.

[Freespirited]

I am new to this forum and even thou some of my posts have being
ignored beyond the new members forums; I don't feel unwelcomed
or ignored at all by the veteran members of Soulforce! you guys
and gals are great, I love your honest and raw approach about
any subject discussed in the forums!

Personally I think that some of the new members are just overly
sensitive, and not as tolerant and patient as most veteran
members of Soulforce are with shared differences of opinions.

I used to participate in a gay christian website (the one that
separates gays into two groups side A and side B) but I got tired
of it because every time I shared my personal opinion or even dared
point out faults with moderators handling of some member's
sensitivities towards constructive criticism, or just their inabilities to
hear the truth, and even my criticism of the moderators for their
favortism and biases towards a personal opinions; that as a result
I was always sent warning notices by a particular "heterosexual
female moderator" telling me that my comments made a lot of the
members uncomfortable, when in fact I always made it clear in
every post by saying "In my personal opinion" bla bla bla bla!!

I think Soulforce is the best website that best tolerates and even
allows outside criticism best then most forum websites targeted
to the gay community in cyberspace. In my opinion the problem
lies with hiper sensitive members's misinterpretations, and not with
the honesty most members in this website are encouraged to
participate in dialogues!


KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK SOULFORCE!!


LEANDRO

[nmwolfboy]

What about my idea of Relentless curiousity and wondering? What if we take time to draw out the poster in order to FULLY understand their argument. Eventually, if we have patients, the flaws will appear, Our passionate anger will have disappated and we can take advantage of the hole that we have discovered.

i think it's a great idea. The most heated exchanges i've witnessed here are the ones from newbies about whom we know next to nothing. Many do try to draw them out, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but when more info about who they are & where they're coming from is shared, the exhanges often change in tone automatically. Relentless is the key? :borg:

What about attempts to expand the context of the discussion into something wider than just what the possibly offending newbie has offered? And many here appear to have mastered the practice of injecting humor into threads - that can keep the discussion rolling but break the tension, no?

Dewdrop - i watch the Dog Whisperer too. It's one of my JR Terrier's favorites tv shows :) Calm, assertive energy. :cool: Good suggestion!

Pax :dove:

scott

[andrewlittle]

I have been following this thread with great interest. While in any dialogue I prefer to have a "stand" or side, I find truth and sincerity in virtually every post.

I will say publicly what I have said privately - "Austin, you ROCK!" Starting this thread is yet one more way you show you are willing to swim against the tide in an effort to love and appreciate all the participants. But, I also find myself agreeing with everyone else, which leads me to an interesting conundrum of sorts.

Is there a danger in trying to establish a dominant culture of dialogue? Establishing a heirarchy of participants, whether based on those who are "followers" of the Soulforce ethic compared to other posters or on some other basis of qualifying opinions and/or rights of respect, is a dangerous concept. It mirrors one that can be found at CARM, in which you have Junior Members, Members, Senior Members and Super Members (not to forget the "CARM First Super Senior Poster Member" status that allows free reign over all others), establishes a cultural structure that mirrors that which exists in society at large and is, at least partially, responsible for the lesser status of non-dominant societal members.

There is value in all kinds of posts.

Posting without emotion - without voicing the hurt and pain of oppression and derision - is not only inherently dishonest, but gives in (in my opinion) to the popular concept that GLBT should not see themselves as oppressed. It reeks of being artificially nice.

Posting without restraint, rather than encouraging dialogue, just promotes mutual diatribe. Talking at each other as opposed to with each other.

In between, there are myriad possibilities - and it is this that I see existing on the forums already. This is not to say this particular discussion isn't important - it is vitally important that we each remain open to learning and being able to discourse. But, the expressions of anger, the posts of temperance, the argumentative attitudes and the calls for calm and restraint are all signs that a system is working effectively.

Out and out abuse, repetitive name-calling, monologue-like barrages of "you sick sinners" are to be corralled. That kind of argumentation can occur anywhere, and anytime, else. How does it do harm, however, for people who post biased, narrow opinions to hear that there is emotional violence that occurs with their words? By people reacting and expressing a sense of outrage, or hurt, or even anger, new posters can learn about the sensitivities that DO EXIST - that are very real in the lives of GLBT folks.

This thread is an example of self-regulation and self-examination and self-criticism - something which should occur time and again. But this should fall short of setting a cultural "norm" of engagement, or a heirarchy of variably qualified posters. The threads allow people to be people - with their beauty spots and their warts. We each have both, and the range of viewpoints and opinions and posting styles give a rich texture to the community that we are - one that I particularly appreciate and find very family-like.

[u-dog]

so why isn't it posted everywhere on the forums?
why do i have to look in the about and the resources to find this creed?

could we make it more visible, as well as make it able to say whether or not you are a follower of soulforce, or you are just a participant on the forums. ? is what i'm saying getting across?


What if there was a form we could "sign" to commit to the terms/definitions above? and if we "signed" the form then there would be symbol by our names in every post. This would simply serve as permision/invitation to hold us accountable to these values. That wouldn't be a "two tiered" membership just a public commitment.

Jamie, the "Is this possible?" was aimed at you and is a technical question. Is our software flexible enough to accommodate something like this?

[kara speltz]

I have been following this thread with great interest. While in any dialogue I prefer to have a "stand" or side, I find truth and sincerity in virtually every post.

I will say publicly what I have said privately - "Austin, you ROCK!" Starting this thread is yet one more way you show you are willing to swim against the tide in an effort to love and appreciate all the participants. But, I also find myself agreeing with everyone else, which leads me to an interesting conundrum of sorts.

Is there a danger in trying to establish a dominant culture of dialogue? Establishing a heirarchy of participants, whether based on those who are "followers" of the Soulforce ethic compared to other posters or on some other basis of qualifying opinions and/or rights of respect, is a dangerous concept. It mirrors one that can be found at CARM, in which you have Junior Members, Members, Senior Members and Super Members (not to forget the "CARM First Super Senior Poster Member" status that allows free reign over all others), establishes a cultural structure that mirrors that which exists in society at large and is, at least partially, responsible for the lesser status of non-dominant societal members.

There is value in all kinds of posts.

Posting without emotion - without voicing the hurt and pain of oppression and derision - is not only inherently dishonest, but gives in (in my opinion) to the popular concept that GLBT should not see themselves as oppressed. It reeks of being artificially nice.

Posting without restraint, rather than encouraging dialogue, just promotes mutual diatribe. Talking at each other as opposed to with each other.

In between, there are myriad possibilities - and it is this that I see existing on the forums already. This is not to say this particular discussion isn't important - it is vitally important that we each remain open to learning and being able to discourse. But, the expressions of anger, the posts of temperance, the argumentative attitudes and the calls for calm and restraint are all signs that a system is working effectively.

Out and out abuse, repetitive name-calling, monologue-like barrages of "you sick sinners" are to be corralled. That kind of argumentation can occur anywhere, and anytime, else. How does it do harm, however, for people who post biased, narrow opinions to hear that there is emotional violence that occurs with their words? By people reacting and expressing a sense of outrage, or hurt, or even anger, new posters can learn about the sensitivities that DO EXIST - that are very real in the lives of GLBT folks.

This thread is an example of self-regulation and self-examination and self-criticism - something which should occur time and again. But this should fall short of setting a cultural "norm" of engagement, or a heirarchy of variably qualified posters. The threads allow people to be people - with their beauty spots and their warts. We each have both, and the range of viewpoints and opinions and posting styles give a rich texture to the community that we are - one that I particularly appreciate and find very family-like.

Andrew, I absolutely agree with you. One of the things I appreciate most about this forum is the fluidity of it. Anger can be a good thing. Name calling on the otherhand, as I see it, never is. But we all falter on this difficult road of nonviolence. I recall a Franciscan priest once saying, I'll be fully nonviolent about 15 mins after my death. Reminders can be helpful and I'm most often grateful for them, unless I'm really stuck at the moment.

kara

[Daniel]

What if there was a form we could "sign" to commit to the terms/definitions above? and if we "signed" the form then there would be symbol by our names in every post. This would simply serve as permision/invitation to hold us accountable to these values. That wouldn't be a "two tiered" membership just a public commitment.


I feel that it is counterproductive to give the impression that some members are more accountable than others. Which is what I believe the above suggestion would do- in effect- creating a tiered system.

My opinion is that just because someone signs a form doesn't mean they have inculcated the principles contained in it. The current 'form' one signs as a new member, as I understand it, is intended to make that newbie aware of policy. And as such, policy and matters of nonviolence are two different subjects.

Besides that, it just gets too 'clubby'. :unhappy: Like Andy- I like the varied nature of things. Anything more than that smacks of sheep and goats. And we know what happens to one of those groups.

[u-dog]

I disgree with you Daniel, you silly poofta! (-- oops sorry... labeling again);)

Wearing a button on my virtual lapel that says, in essence, "I'm trying to learn to embody the principals of non-violence. Please let me know how I'm doing" is not elitist and does not set up a multi-tiered community. It just articulates my intention and gives others permission to hold me accountable to what I say I believe.

(the above insult was uttered in joking reference to the old Saturday Night Live routine with Dan Akroyd and Jane Kerton (sp) "Jane, you miserable slut")

[keltic63]

I disgree with you Daniel, you silly poofta! (-- oops sorry... labeling again);)

Wearing a button on my virtual lapel that says, in essence, "I'm trying to learn to embody the principals of non-violence. Please let me know how I'm doing" is not elitist and does not set up a multi-tiered community. It just articulates my intention and gives others permission to hold me accountable to what I say I believe.

and I have to disagree with you, u-dog. I think it creates an "invisible" tiered system. I also think we're already doing a good job of holding each other accountable. I believe that is the reason this whole thread got started.

[u-dog]

It just goes to show how WRONG you can be !!!:p


Its ok though. I don't need to get my way. I know in my heart that I'm right.

[Dash]

He who has ears to hear....but those who challenge us are not listening....I know that none of my reasoning is going to reach them...

Do I stay silent?? Even if I'm silent, am I harboring anger/hatred against them?

The positively planetary weight of their misinformation is more than I can move...I know they are going to do all of these things I have listed...Expecting it, how can I be prepare myself to respond lovingly...effectively?

Will I respond in the same way that I always have? If I try a new way, will it be buried it in the ensuing diatribes?

What about all our newest Soulforcey friends? This a place where they can have a voice...their voices have been suppressed by society and a Church that essentially silences them by refusing to listen....For once...the first time, maybe, they have a chance to voice long suppressed thoughts and hurts.

For me, it's not a question of how can we reason with our challengers...or how we can change their mind...or how we can "zing" 'em....or how we can shut them up when they say horrible things...or how we can disprove something rooted solely in their faith (faith rightly spurns all proofs, does it not?)...

I have little confidence that any normal/average/usual debate rhetoric will be of any use...I have never seen anyone respond to a rebuttal with, "Oh, I never thought of that. I guess the Church and I are wrong."

I think...Love might reach them where no reason will...I've actually seen that happen once or twice...

But...how does one love these visitors that we will never see? How do we "do love" to them? How do we activate it within our hearts and then effectively, sincerely express it in...writing?:confused:

I'm hearing:

u-dog: we want them to be curious about us?...be curious about them

Keltic offers advice from the 4-steps: show love/nonviolence as we bring truth, accept suffering without retaliation or complaint, seek ultimately and only reconciliation

Daniel adds: don't post when angry, and examine yourself before others

Zerbie: Talk to the person, not the issue...assume the best about our challengers...address the best part of their soul

Joe suggests: regard them the way we regard the dearest and most important person in our lives

James recommends: calm, assertive energy to give the gift of non-fear

Scott asks the question that is in me: how can I express anger without being violent to myself of others? He reminds us that many are watching us that do not post...and observes the value of humor.

Austin offers: ask another Soulforcer to stand in when we don't feel we can contribute lovingingly...pay particular attention to the connotation of our words and tone of our post

Brent: own your emotions...don't make them about the other person

Leandro encourages: be aware of hypersensitivity

Andrew: be honest about our emotions and individuality

Kara says: always avoid namecalling

I wanna test it out....

[Dash]

So here's a little test for each of us:

Someone has just (once again for the gajillionth time) posted, "1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;)....SO THERE!, you sillies!".

Show me how you might respond...loving them...without retaliating...

Go!

[u-dog]

I'm hearing:

u-dog: we want them to be curious about us?...be curious about them

Keltic offers advice from the 4-steps: show love/nonviolence as we bring truth, accept suffering without retaliation or complaint, seek ultimately and only reconciliation

Daniel adds: don't post when angry, and examine yourself before others

Zerbie: Talk to the person, not the issue...assume the best about our challengers...address the best part of their soul

Joe suggests: regard them the way we regard the dearest and most important person in our lives

James recommends: calm, assertive energy to give the gift of non-fear

Scott asks the question that is in me: how can I express anger without being violent to myself of others? He reminds us that many are watching us that do not post...and observes the value of humor.

Austin offers: ask another Soulforcer to stand in when we don't feel we can contribute lovingingly...pay particular attention to the connotation of our words and tone of our post

Brent: own your emotions...don't make them about the other person

Leandro encourages: be aware of hypersensitivity

Andrew: be honest about our emotions and individuality

Kara says: always avoid namecalling

I wanna test it out....

Dash! It's sure good to have you back! thank you for doing this distillation. Makes us sound pretty wise, huh?

[Daniel]

Someone has just (once again for the gajillionth time) posted, "1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;)....SO THERE!, you sillies!".


Oh....you mean a little role play?

I can't post right now. I'm too angry. :rolleyes:

Be right back after I examine myself.

"I could wile away the hours...."

[u-dog]

I never posted a post that said that (in Daniel's post) are misquoting me on purpose?:mad:

[keltic63]

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;)....SO THERE!, you sillies!".




Friend,
that's such a hard verse to read, making it sound as though the kingdom of God is very difficult for anyone to enter. Let's take a look at those words, especially the one translated as "homosexual." "Homosexual" is a relatively new word, coming into use in the 1800's. How can we be sure that this word is what Paul was referring to in this verse? Paul combined two Greek words in this scripture, and most theologians agree that the meaning is unclear. That same constructed word, most likely coined by Paul, and not used anywhere else, could not have been referring to homosexual orientation as we know it today. The best interpretation of that word most likely refers to the common, and unjustice, practice of pederasty. Is it fair to continue to use this verse to condemn God's gay and lesbian children based on this scripture?

[u-dog]

Dear Dummy,

Shut the f*** up with the Corinthians quote would y... Darn! this is harder than I thought it would be!

Dear Dunderhead... nope

Ok, third times the charm.

Dear Somenone,

Sure sounds like Paul is MAD at somebody! In the New Testament God has given us an opportunity to eavesdrop on a conversation that took place 1950+ years ago. Clearly there is something going on in Corinth that Paul, (and presumably God too) was not pleased about. Someone wrote to Paul to let him know what was up, but we don't HAVE that letter and we can only guess what might have been in it. I wonder what was happening in or around the Corinthian Church that Paul was responding to? Was it JUST LIKE things that we see going on in our society? was it sort of like and sort of NOT like what we see in our society? or was it NOT AT ALL like what we see going on. When Paul coins the word "Arsenokoitai" (which compbines the words for "young man" and "bed") how do we know what actions he was refering to?

Before I told a whole sub-section of humanity that they were going to Hell because of who they are, I think I'd want to know more than I do. I wonder what God's reaction would be if we consigned the WRONG group of people to Hellfire? Its a pretty serious thing. Let me know what you think!

[Dash]

While Daniel's off "examining himself" [snicker] I try my hand at this too...

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;)....SO THERE!, you sillies!".

"What is this Kingdom of Heaven, and do I really want to go there if there ain't gonna be any sexually im...."....Oh...well maybe not...try again, Dash:lol:

"Oh, hi! I really would like to address your question...but I need go wrap this recent head wound from a flying bible verse! Be right back." :lol: No?? I'll try something else then...

En guard! And have at you, you! Matthew 21:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=32&version=31&context=verse) HiiiiYAH!!! :lol: :rolleyes:

Hmmm....I'm not very good at this...Okay, seriously...

Hi, I'm Dash. I read your post, and I'm glad you're here. I know from experience that posts like yours sometimes start fights. Since, I like to get to know a man before I duke it out, I thought I'd introduce myself.

Lesseee....I was born a Mennonite, then went Lutheran and now I'm paid to go to an Episcopal Church. Tell me a little bit about your faith background.


Well...that's not so good, but...

[dsdrane]

Lesseee....I was born a Mennonite, then went Lutheran and now I'm paid to go to an Episcopal Church. Tell me a little bit about your faith background.

They pay people to go to the Piskie Church??? :eek:

WTF??

Manischewitz! I wuz robbed!

[u-dog]

They pay people to go to the Piskie Church??? :eek:


WTF??

Manischewitz! I wuz robbed!

K -- you've had your little joke, now show us your stuff!! ;)

[dsdrane]

K -- you've had your little joke, now show us your stuff!! ;)

You wound me, U.

:injured:

...


:D

...


Alright, I'll come back later with something serious.

(Sheesh...tough room....)

[BrentRichards]

Well, I'm trying not to be silly. I take that 1 Corinthians passage, and the whole Bible, very seriously. Too seriously, in fact, to risk assuming I know what Paul meant better than Paul did. It's obvious that Paul is against something here, the question we always need to ask is "What EXACTLY is he AGAINST?" Then I'll have a better idea of what I need to be against to be in line with him. There are language and cultural issues worth looking at here. Would you like to look at them? If so, I'll be happy to give you a more detailed explanation of what I think on that verse, and others, if you'd like to hear more.

[BrentRichards]

Hi, I'm Dash. I read your post, and I'm glad you're here. I know from experience that posts like yours sometimes start fights. Since, I like to get to know a man before I duke it out, I thought I'd introduce myself.

Lesseee....I was born a Mennonite, then went Lutheran and now I'm paid to go to an Episcopal Church. Tell me a little bit about your faith background.


Well...that's not so good, but...

No, it is good ... I like it. Not taking the bait instantly is an excellent move! [Darn, wish I'd thought of it.]

[BrentRichards]

BTW, has anyone here recently been called anything as innocuous (I win Scrabble) as "silly?" Just wondering. [grin]

[BrentRichards]

Well, I'm trying not to be silly. I take that 1 Corinthians passage, and the whole Bible, very seriously. Too seriously, in fact, to risk assuming I know what Paul meant better than Paul did. It's obvious that Paul is against something here, the question we always need to ask is "What EXACTLY is he AGAINST?" Then I'll have a better idea of what I need to be against to be in line with him. There are language and cultural issues worth looking at here. Would you like to look at them? If so, I'll be happy to give you a more detailed explanation of what I think on that verse, and others, if you'd like to hear more.

BTW, guess I should explain my intent here: I'm attempting to diffuse the insult ("I'm trying not to be silly"); acknowledge the legitimacy of the argument and address it in a sentence; and offer dialogue instead of starting an argument ... asking, in kinder words, I hope: "Do you want an answer, or are you just looking for a fight?"

[andrewlittle]

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;)....SO THERE!, you sillies!".

So, NewbieFundieDash, hi there, and welcome to Soulforce.

I'm trying to figure out what your intent was in posting this. Were you pointing your finger at someone here with that scriptural quote?

If so, who among us are you pointing to, and with which description? Is it the sexual immorality, or the idolaters, or the adulterers, or the thieves, or the drunkards, or the slanderers or the swindlers that you want to concentrate on? Or perhaps its the malakoi or the arsenokoitey - but, of course, if it were these you'd have to know for sure what those words meant, wouldn't you?

The others are relatively clear and, as far as I can tell, we have probably a similar percentage of those here as you do at your church. I'm sure, therefore, that you'd recognize that it wouldn't be too productive to shake your finger in our face over those.

Now if it's the other two - you know, the ones we have nothing but our own imaginations to fall back onto for what Paul meant - then I'd also guess you have several of those at your church, too. We just don't know who they are, since we don't know what Paul meant - so we'll have to trust God to sort that out, won't we?

Sometimes, people do that, you know - they come here having had a pastor tell them what they think these words mean, and then these people, knowing everything there is to know about the Bible in general, and this passage in particular, decide to come and taunt us with it. I know, it is annoying. It really torques a lot of us off, and it definitely gets in the way of healthy discussion. It would be so much easier for those people to say what they mean directly and unambiguously.

Anyway, if you've got something you'd like to discuss, about this passage or anything else, or if you want to introduce yourself, we would like to hear more.

[I would probably go on - but I just exploded and made one hell of a mess on my computer - think Mr Creosote. That's what I get for holding back on the expletives, I guess]

[davidb]

From Biblical Theological Bulletin, Spring 2004, by John H. Elliott

No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context
Other biblical versions prefer different translations such as Weichlinge, Knabenschander, catamites, sodomites, invertidos, afeminados, effeminate. Each of these expressions, of course, also is culturally laden. The startling differences among translations indicate serious problems concerning the sense of the original terms and make one wonder which, if any of them, comes closest to the meaning and implications of the original Greek terms. More on the translation problem anon. For the moment these observations should suffice for demonstrating that even the claim that this text has bearing on the topic of "homosexuality" is open to serious question. This illustrates an important, yet regularly overlooked, hermeneutical point: relevancy of certain biblical texts to certain theological or moral issues is often in the eye of the beholder. We frequently see what we have been taught to see or what we wish to see--and not always what is actually there. The "sin" is often in the eye of the beholder. Thus an accurate reading of the Bible never starts with a translation but with the original text--a step impossible for the majority of Bible readers. From the very getgo, they are thus quite dependent on the opinion of "experts,"--translators, commentators and decoders, who themselves, in the case of 1 Cor 6:9, have reached no agreement on the translation or meaning of the terms thought to be relevant to the topic of homosexuality.

More at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_1_34/ai_n6147828/pg_1

[tpdncr4christ]

I promise to post something of relevance soon... I'm at school right now... shhh.... ;) I'll post when I get home at 7ish

[dsdrane]

The below exchange occurred recently in the thread "BYU Grad Perspective":


Agreed...but we're not the ones doing the defining.

I love it when some have said to me "why is everything gay, gay, gay with you", and they have absolutely no idea the extent to which implicit or explicit heterosexuality pervades daily life in our society -- from Jack & Jill, to Close-Up toothpaste commercials, to soap operas, to absolutely everything.

You don't have to define yourself by your sexuality because it's done for you in a zillion ways all the time.

I, too, am a son, a brother, a nephew, a co-worker, an architect, a Democrat, an Episcopalian, etc.; but, because I'm also gay, it colors everything else, whether I want it to or not. That decision is made by others.

And it will continue to do so until such time as it no longer matters.

Hence Soulforce, my friend.


Thank you for this thoughtful response... this makes a lot of sence to me. So, what can we do, together, despite our diference in beliefs to make this world a better place?

P.S. I love architecture and I'm also a Dem (/gasp)... see all that we share and can build on... I hope we can all overcome the need to tear each other down. Thanks again for the thoughtful responce.


No one was more shocked at the disarmament than I was. In retrospect, it would seem that reminding the other side of our shared humanity -- "we're your friends, your neighbors, etc., etc." -- temporarily, in this case, allowed us to venture out of our trenches.

Ironically, shiningstones16 posted the above response while I was busy crafting another, more arch, response to something else he wrote. When I finally posted and then saw the above, I felt a little bad.

Oops.

[Daniel]

I never posted a post that said that (in Daniel's post) are misquoting me on purpose?:mad:

Sweetie- I don't know how your handle got in that quote, unless I tried to multi-quote and got mixed up. And I fixed it. Nothing intentional, ok?

[u-dog]

Sweetie- I don't know how your handle got in that quote, unless I tried to multi-quote and got mixed up. And I fixed it. Nothing intentional, ok?

I Knew that honeypie, I was just yanking your chain! :rolleyes:

[Dash]

BTW, has anyone here recently been called anything as innocuous (I win Scrabble) as "silly?" Just wondering. [grin]

Oh, they usually just call me Satan and perform an exorcism on the thread.

[BrentRichards]

Oh, they usually just call me Satan and perform an exorcism on the thread.

I wish, when someone calls me possessed, I could foam at the mouth on cue ... now THAT would be a dialogue-stopper.

[Dash]

Some wonderful responses folks! Here's some thoughts based on my experience, stuff I've read, and other questions I've seen flying around the forum.

Keltic: You addressed the poster as "Friend" -- I like it, myself. In my experience, though, people can actually respond negatively to any attempt at such familiar language (recently a gentleman made it very clear we were not, and would not be friends). Anybody else ever get this? I think their feeling is that it comes off as condescending, disingenuous or insincere even though I am genuinely trying to treat them as someone I care about in my human family. I like that you make it clear that this is something you have wrestled with and are inviting them to wrestle with it also.

U-dog: I like that you are calling for a look at the context. Plus I think you display a notable respect for Paul, the Bible, and God...which hopefully the challenger would recognize. I have heard conservatives say, "you're undermining the Word of God!" when asking them to look at the original language, and context.

Dash: Truth is, with my own post, I kinda expect the poster to think I'm avoiding the issue...but, if they respond positively, I'd try to build a relationship.

Brent: I love the analysis of your post as much as the post itself! Both show a very careful and respectful approach to the challenger. Plus, in what I see as a very important Gandhian technique, you refuse to comply with the poster's disrespect of you by reinforcing the value of your own perspective.

Andrew: Obviously you deserve extra credit for your restraint! Hahah! One thing I especially liked...taking a moment to help the newbie understand a typical result of such a post--let them know what they are in for. While I like the presence of your emotion, however, your tone has a funk about it that says "you're an #$*@!" without really saying it. But, one thing that is delightfully obvious is that they are engaging a substantial intellect, and they won't be getting away with thoughtless hurling of Bible blades.

Davidb: A reply with a source reference! Without a personal message, it seems a bit cold...but on the other hand, supplying a reference implies respect for the issue and automatically raises the level of dialogue.

dsdrane: Sounds like if you hadn't #$&@ it up, you'da gotten it right, huh? That oughta learn ya! :p But seriously...you're right---it's harder to demonize someone you identify with...that is, someone in whom you can see yourself. "I am you" is a powerful equation that most people intuitively understand. On the other hand, it is the one equation that opposing groups automatically deny--expending most of their energy afterward to calculate complicated disproofs--undermining what they would otherwise instinctively honor.

The question of "debate" has come up elsewhere. "The debate is over"--certainly in regard to our sexuality and our value as persons. What about scripture? I'm still wondering if we can we accomplish anything of value by analysing/debating scripture. If there is scripture debate, what can we hope for?

[BrentRichards]

I've also been thinking of this through an interesting set of lenses:

I was a staffer with Campus Crusade for Christ for 3 years (I know, but we all have skeletons). During my time there, I got some significant training in cross-cultural work, and I've had the chance to put it into practice in spending some time in the Middle East. Since then, I've seen how much of life is "cross-cultural" work! I have begun to train youth leaders from a cross-cultural perspective, and it seems to me that most of our "great debates" are based in differences between two sub-cultures.

We, the gay community, certainly have our own subculture, and so does the evangelical world: we each have our own set of assumptions, core values, shared experiences, and even language. So, when we engage each other, we're often at cross purposes even before we hit any issues, simply because we're speaking different languages. We end up talking past each other, instead of to each other.

I still speak a pretty fluent evangelese, and I'm toying with the ideas of how that can enter into the debate in productive ways. Hmmm...

[Dash]

I still speak a pretty fluent evangelese, and I'm toying with the ideas of how that can enter into the debate in productive ways. Hmmm...

You know, I kinda thought I was able to relate to the Fundamentalist perspective, as I myself was once one. Truth is, though, that I've forgotten how I thought about things then. Not quite sure when it happened.

[BrentRichards]

That does happen ... I was recently rereading some of the manuscript I wrote "from the other side" and found it unsettling ... "Holy cow, did I write that?"

[Freespirited]

He who has ears to hear....but those who challenge us are not listening....I know that none of my reasoning is going to reach them...

Do I stay silent?? Even if I'm silent, am I harboring anger/hatred against them?

The positively planetary weight of their misinformation is more than I can move...I know they are going to do all of these things I have listed...Expecting it, how can I be prepare myself to respond lovingly...effectively?

Will I respond in the same way that I always have? If I try a new way, will it be buried it in the ensuing diatribes?

What about all our newest Soulforcey friends? This a place where they can have a voice...their voices have been suppressed by society and a Church that essentially silences them by refusing to listen....For once...the first time, maybe, they have a chance to voice long suppressed thoughts and hurts.

For me, it's not a question of how can we reason with our challengers...or how we can change their mind...or how we can "zing" 'em....or how we can shut them up when they say horrible things...or how we can disprove something rooted solely in their faith (faith rightly spurns all proofs, does it not?)...

I have little confidence that any normal/average/usual debate rhetoric will be of any use...I have never seen anyone respond to a rebuttal with, "Oh, I never thought of that. I guess the Church and I are wrong."

I think...Love might reach them where no reason will...I've actually seen that happen once or twice...

But...how does one love these visitors that we will never see? How do we "do love" to them? How do we activate it within our hearts and then effectively, sincerely express it in...writing?:confused:

I'm hearing:

u-dog: we want them to be curious about us?...be curious about them

Keltic offers advice from the 4-steps: show love/nonviolence as we bring truth, accept suffering without retaliation or complaint, seek ultimately and only reconciliation

Daniel adds: don't post when angry, and examine yourself before others

Zerbie: Talk to the person, not the issue...assume the best about our challengers...address the best part of their soul

Joe suggests: regard them the way we regard the dearest and most important person in our lives

James recommends: calm, assertive energy to give the gift of non-fear

Scott asks the question that is in me: how can I express anger without being violent to myself of others? He reminds us that many are watching us that do not post...and observes the value of humor.

Austin offers: ask another Soulforcer to stand in when we don't feel we can contribute lovingingly...pay particular attention to the connotation of our words and tone of our post

Brent: own your emotions...don't make them about the other person

Leandro encourages: be aware of hypersensitivity

Andrew: be honest about our emotions and individuality

Kara says: always avoid namecalling

I wanna test it out....


Well thank you Dash!

I am glad you recognize and value my comment! I respect people's
sensitivities so as long as they don't use it to manipulate the opinion
of others. As per me I treat people with respect so as long as the
feeling is mutual!! I am glad to come across a forum where
everyone's opinions is respected and valued. This is truly a safe
place for EVERYONE!!


Thank you guys and gals, and thank you Soulforce!!


Leandro

[BrianB]

I wish, when someone calls me possessed, I could foam at the mouth on cue ... now THAT would be a dialogue-stopper.

Elijah Wood said that when Shelob stuck Frodo in LoTR he chewed a couple of Alka-Seltzer (tm) so that he could foam at the mouth on cue.

[ladyinred]

Here's some advice I'd say would be valuable, something I heard. Tell your truth without blame or judgment ( attack aimed at another person) This does not mean you agree with or condone their views but you assertively speak up for yourself without feeling devalued or resentful.(Yes, I know sometimes that is hard to do, but consider that people are often so conditioned by their belief systems or what they are told to believe, other possibilities don't sink in, they cannot relate to you being who you are,only with what they've been taught to believe about you, perhaps the hard part is they cannot see you in your shoes, you are you and valued regardless what they say, keep to that conviction)

[rustaman]

I hope you folks realize what an amazing thread this is. The fact that it has been viewed over 740 times means that the issue is important and something people want to know about. I think most of us get it that there is a difference between aggressively expressing our anger in an attack mode, versus an assertive expression that leaves the door open for further dialogue. The reality is that assertive communication is a learned skill. The primitive animal part of our brain is very reactive – it makes us want to bite people. The more evolved, higher functioning part of our brain is capable of not only restraining ourselves, but more importantly learning how to cooperate for the greater good. I think the value of this forum is not only to give people an opportunity to talk about their pain, their anger, and their sadness, but also to instruct people how to dialogue in a constructive way. I think that has been accomplished in this thread.

The cool thing I have noticed about the way the threads are displayed, is the newest posting in any thread pops it to the top of the thread list. If any thread gets too hot, someone posting in this thread can bring it back to the top of the list as a reminder and an instructional tool for everyone.

Although I can’t be here as often as I would like, I want to thank everyone, especially the regulars, for your inspiration and commitment. There is a richness here that is quite extraordinary.

[Baigle]

Well, I certainly think this is an excellent discussion, one about pent up feelings and how to express them. For example: when you see a friend that you know is harboring feelings of frustration and perhaps anger, the last thing one does is go up to them and say something that you know is totally going to throw them off the edge.:eek:
In the same way, those of us who perhaps for certain reasons cannot display our true feelings harbor pent-up emotions. So when someone comes along and says extremely hurtful things about us, it's very liable to send us over the edge.
So in a way, it's understandable and somewhat forgivable when we snap back at others. But we also need to remember that "You get more with honey than you do with salt." In our responses, we can be harsh, but be sure that we're also being fair. And if possible, be kinder. Take a break before we answer to give ourselves some time to cool down.
Just a thought. ;)

[BrentRichards]

But we also need to remember that "You get more with honey than you do with salt."

My favorite smart alec version of this is "Yeah, but you get even more flies with a dead skunk."

Probably not helpful to this discussion, though.

[Montanna]

To be loving to someone who doesn't see you, you need to be very rested. It takes a lot of energy. When you are depleted, sometimes it's helpful to talk with a friend who knows you well. They can bring you back to the place where you realize that ultimately you can't change other people. They have to do the work to get there. Feel good about having put yourself out there by carrying on a reasonable and respectful conversation. Even if someone doesn't acknowledge what you have said, they still heard it and it will work on them. You'll probably never see the change you made in someone's life by your statements. The talk here is wonderful. Montanna

[nmwolfboy]

i'm a little puzzled by the recent sockpuppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29) of a former SF forum participant (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=29257&postcount=73) who was previously banned by the SF moderators.

Was his duplicitous re-entry motivated by an undeniable desire to continue the exchange with us, or by a desire to influence? An academic question at this point, but it still is circling in my brain.

In this thread we've shared opinions and thoughts about the purposes and methods of our interaction here, and about dialogue in general. i'm trying to fit this latest sockpuppet incursion into the whole 'dialoguing' context. Any thoughts?

Pax :dove:

scott

[Daniel]

oooooooh Scott. A new word. I love new words like this. Thanks!

I've been thinking about this as well. From having engaged the aforementioned sockpuppet in his first incarnation, I would have to say that his (if it is a he) motivation was to "save" members here from hell and damnation. He seemed- to me- at least, to be a self-hating gay person (maybe that was a ruse too), and was intent on getting members here to go to a web site that had ex-gay affiliations- which is pretty stupid when you think about it, considering what we have gone through to be here: we're not questioning our being GLBT.

The second incarnation was devoid of any personal 'story line'- as far as I can recall, which gave one the sense that the person was merely issue oriented. That his initial issue was different than the second one, is curious in itself. That says something about motivation, doesn't it?

I can imagine some guy who really really believes that he is annointed by God to "save the gays." And he will do anything and everything to do that- even if it entails deception.

Secret Agent Man.

It must have been fun for him during round two. Pulling the wool over those gay people but real good.

However, the truth comes out in the end. It always does. That's what I'm going to remember from this.

Lying and deceit is antithetical to the life of faith. The liar has to lie to himself first, before he lies to us. And the irony here is that, once one puts on lie on top of another, it becomes a living hell.

And he wanted to save us?

[dsdrane]

Holy Sheep Dip...of course!!

(I'm slow.)

[keltic63]

i'm a little puzzled by the recent sockpuppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29) of a former SF forum participant (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=29257&postcount=73) who was previously banned by the SF moderators.

Was his duplicitous re-entry motivated by an undeniable desire to continue the exchange with us, or by a desire to influence? An academic question at this point, but it still is circling in my brain.

In this thread we've shared opinions and thoughts about the purposes and methods of our interaction here, and about dialogue in general. i'm trying to fit this latest sockpuppet incursion into the whole 'dialoguing' context. Any thoughts?

Pax :dove:

scott

we're soooo FAB-uuuuu-Lousssss! how could he resist us?????

I do believe that our interaction with the sockpuppet was positive and non-violent. Even as we gathered evidence about his identity, we treated him with respect, while calling him on his debate methods, and eventually his deception.

There's more to this than most of you know. I believe that this person has some major issues. I found it necessary to respond in a very firm way to a personal email that he sent me. I believe that some behaviors demonstrated here and through the internet via other websites/services could be considered stalking, or something very close to it.

we have brought this issue up in other threads: the desire to influence/change/save/redeem homosexuals is so strong that it becomes acceptible to lie and deceive in order to accomplish that goal. Sin so that other sinners can be saved. That's a bit strange.

[Zerbie]

I find it pretty clear that Mr S's motivation of "saving" gays was secondary to his primary aim of convincing us that we are threatening Christians. He is trying to "explain" to us that our efforts to achieve things like equality under the law and a life relatively freer from fear of being bludgeoned with a baseball bat by a group of bashers on an adrenaline high, is the first step towards bringing Christians up on charges and even imprisoning them for their beliefs.

I have a terribly hard time empathizing at all with his fear of such, because it is so preposterous. Here. In the U.S. That will NEVER happen (never meaning in the next few centuries at least, if there's still a habitable earth in a few centuries.)

The ironic thing being, IF any restrictions were to start cropping up around freedom of association, religion, or speech, at least half the SF members here would pop up in immediate opposition. Yet he tries to paint us as being the very force mobilizing for such a despicable aim. It's ironic to he Nth degree, and it is the essential reason why nothing he says deserves to be taken seriously.

[Daniel]

we're soooo FAB-uuuuu-Lousssss! how could he resist us?????

How you're talking! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dash]

The last 10 days or so with Simpleman and Simon have been exhausting and frustrating. We've seen again some of the common problems that we run into :

1) The absolutely relentless refusal to address very important points. In stead of honest dialogue, when they encounter a serious hitch in their talking points they run off in another direction...only to reiterate the points we previously tried to counter as soon as we chase after them. The circling leaves us all tired and angry.

2) Game playing. Keltic very intelligently saw through one of the maddening games that was being played out. We often become participants in these games (however unwillingly) and the results are always draining.

3) Unstated motives. Because the antigay bias is often unstated or denied, we're never allowed to talk about the REAL reasons behind the issues that motivate these visitors...the REAL reasons why they are unwilling to listen to our points. There is a broad, systemic failure of authentic dialogue because they have created (and we let them) a false structure upon which the entire conversation rests.

Anyway...that's what I observed...

Quite frankly, I could not be more proud of everyone here. Nonviolence, just like every other skill of value in this life takes a lot of practice. We really never fail to have opportunities here to study and practice it towards perfection. It's been another round of hard practice and you know what? You all deserve a BREAK! :aparty: :magic: :weee: :agree: :applause:

So party on! And be excellent to one another!

[Daniel]

Keltic very intelligently saw through one of the maddening games that was being played out. We often become participants in these games (however unwillingly) and the results are always draining.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Bravo Keltic/Steve! Your observations never cease to amaze me. So obvious to the one who is looking at the situation with unveiled eyes.

(And that's what public school teachers learn to do- have eyes in the back of their heads!)

[nmwolfboy]

we're soooo FAB-uuuuu-Lousssss! how could he resist us?????

Well, yes, there is that. :D :cool: :rainbow: :rofl:

I find it pretty clear that Mr S's motivation of "saving" gays was secondary to his primary aim of convincing us that we are threatening Christians. He is trying to "explain" to us that our efforts to achieve things like equality under the law and a life relatively freer from fear of being bludgeoned with a baseball bat by a group of bashers on an adrenaline high, is the first step towards bringing Christians up on charges and even imprisoning them for their beliefs.

I have a terribly hard time empathizing at all with his fear of such, because it is so preposterous. Here. In the U.S. That will NEVER happen (never meaning in the next few centuries at least, if there's still a habitable earth in a few centuries.)

The ironic thing being, IF any restrictions were to start cropping up around freedom of association, religion, or speech, at least half the SF members here would pop up in immediate opposition. Yet he tries to paint us as being the very force mobilizing for such a despicable aim. It's ironic to he Nth degree, and it is the essential reason why nothing he says deserves to be taken seriously.

i admit to having a really hard time with the viewpoint that advocating for the oppressed somehow will result in "poor, persecuted Christians". It pushes alot of my buttons. For one thing, i am a Christian, and i certainly don't feel persecuted on that basis. That whole argument is just obfuscatory, imo.

This morning, after reading through the hate speech thread once more, Daniel's post really spoke to my perspective.
Now. Your second assertion prompted this reader to do a little ad hoc research. How about we take a look at what's going on out there via a quick look at google?

~

If one used the advanced setting at google and looks for the exact phrase "gays persecute christians" we find 0 hits.

However, if we enter the exact phrase "christians persecute gays" we find 24 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "homosexuals hate christians" we find 64 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "christians hate homosexuals" we find 1800 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "god hates fags" we find 187,000 hits.

(If we enter the exact phrase "god hates christians" we find 2050 hits.)

If we enter the exact phrase "fags hate god" we find 915 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "christians are persecuted " we find 18,000 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "buddhist are persecuted" we find 280 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "muslims are persecuted" we find 9990 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "gays are persecuted" we find 2170 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase " homosexuals are persecuted" we find 1930 hits.

~

What does all this tell us?

Well. Several things stand out. For one thing, it is pretty clear that there is a great deal more discourse regarding the perception that christians have a real problem with gay people. Another thing is that christians have the perception that they are being persecuted.

Is it possible that the two issues have something to do with one another? One writer, Elizabeth A. Castelli, a historian of Christian martyrdom, attended a Christian Right strategy session in the "War on Christians" and had this to say.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_002500.php




Simon- while you are busy with thinking about how christians are being persecuted, there are a growing number of people who actually believe in the teachings of Jesus and nonviolence. They are on the left and the right, and they are tired of being told by conservatives that they don't follow the true faith as laid out to them by those who seem hell bent on domination and will use all force necessary to their goals.

Is that really the way of Christ?

Which side are you gonna be on? With the people who hate, the misguided and willfully ignorant, or the people who really do want us all to live together in peace?

For me, the Christian persecution complex is entirely blind to the social justice prophet aspect of Jesus Christ. Injustice is injustice, whether suffered by women, glbt people, people of color, people of faith, etc.

Zerbie's got the right of it too, when she points out the irony of our recent sockpuppet's attribution of an opressive thrust upon Christians by SoulForce. Sheesh!

Are Christians persecuted in this world? Sure, but it's hardly because of the hate crimes legislation before Congress. That's what really frys my ass - the Christianists' whiny claims of imagined victimizations only devalue the tragic suffering of the truly opressed everywhere. Spending time & energy vilifying God's glbt children instead of seeing Christ in everyone and trying to live His example of ministry.

Arrrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!! (Okay, calming down. Now, breathe, pray, act....)

Pax :dove:

scott

[Zerbie]

. It's been another round of hard practice and you know what? You all deserve a BREAK! :aparty: :magic: :weee: :agree: :applause:

So party on! And be excellent to one another!

Heheheh! :lol:

I'm gonna celebrate my withdrawal from the screamfest with S&S by trying out a new recipe, and by cleaning out that room in the house where all the junk piles up. . . .

Ooh but Dash so just put me in the mood for some Bill & Ted. Wish I owned the DVD!

[BrentRichards]

I'm sorry to say that in some evangelical/fundamental circles, it is considered okay to fudge the truth "for the sake of the gospel." Missionaries frequently enter officially "closed" countries under false pretenses, and "covert" evangelists of all kinds choose which truth to tell and which to withhold in order to be granted access/hearing in otherwise inaccessible places/situtations. They carefully distinguish this (in their own minds) from "lying" ... you don't say anything untrue, you just don't say everything that is true, either ... I was specifically taught that this was okay (and expected) in a missions context.

Simon might have said "Well, I never told anybody I WASN'T the same person as ..." It's a little mental gymnastics that's used to justify what is, at best, prevarication ... ostensibly for a "greater good." I've seen it many times. Sigh.

[Freespirited]

In my opinion there is a growing number of gay christians or god loving others gays and lesbians in our gay communities whose religious convictions are very suspicious! as there exist a growing number of an almost invisible infiltrating of fundamentalist and conservative among us that is just as threatening and dangerous to our struggles and cause for equallity, but that may go unnoticed because they shared same identity or religious convictions as many of us, as such their disruptive nature may be ignored. As for me I am a strong believer and an avid activist for the equality and pride of the gblt comunity!

It is important that gay activists of Soulforce realize there are those among us who are willing to sabotage our cause; and that heterosexuals are not the only ones out there wanting to destroy us! I have found these people's sole purpose is to brainwash the questioning, lonely, and soul searching gay men and lesbians into making them think it is ok to be gay so as long as you don't have sex with same sex partners!? and through the usage of other manipulative technics in a very subtle sort of way much like the ex-gay ministries have attempted to do with many in our gay community to change their ways!! these so-called fundies among us seem to target the weakest of us who have suffered from low self-esteem, depression, loneliness, and self-loathingness within our own gayness.

I too have had problems with the fundies and conservative among us for
trying to expose their hidden agendas!!


LEANDRO

[tdogg]

When we are hit with their lies and deceit, we should come back with loving truth, persistently. With the threads involving Simon aka Sammy and Simpleman aka who knows, I agree that everyone here handled it well. The truth continued to be told through the lies and deceit, and there was respect and even admiration. Well done SF posters!

One of them asked why we feel that Christians lie and deceive us? Well, if any of you (S,S,S) are listening, it's because they do - reread your posts for the example. I only hope you will think on the truth and bring away some of the love to hold you on a bad day.

[cousin.of.zuzu]

While Daniel's off "examining himself" [snicker] I try my hand at this too...



"What is this Kingdom of Heaven, and do I really want to go there if there ain't gonna be any sexually im...."....Oh...well maybe not...try again, Dash:lol:

"Oh, hi! I really would like to address your question...but I need go wrap this recent head wound from a flying bible verse! Be right back." :lol: No?? I'll try something else then...

En guard! And have at you, you! Matthew 21:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=32&version=31&context=verse) HiiiiYAH!!! :lol: :rolleyes:

Hmmm....I'm not very good at this...Okay, seriously...

Hi, I'm Dash. I read your post, and I'm glad you're here. I know from experience that posts like yours sometimes start fights. Since, I like to get to know a man before I duke it out, I thought I'd introduce myself.

Lesseee....I was born a Mennonite, then went Lutheran and now I'm paid to go to an Episcopal Church. Tell me a little bit about your faith background.


Well...that's not so good, but...


Dash this was great! :) And this discussion was great. Good for provoking though as to how I'm going to have these types of discussions without anger with my family sometime here in the future. And although I don't post much I watch these forums and want to say thanks all.