Then I respectfully recommend you not bring your views into discussion boards. People who agree with you have no need to discuss them and you won't
discuss them with those who disagree.
No offense intended, but I think you are being....
What are you being?
Let's say a married couple, Alberta and Bert, come in to see a counselor. They sit down and the counselor asks them, "
What brings you here?" Immediately the volume of Alberta's voice increases, her speech becomes pressured, and she says, "
I want you to fix Bert! Bert's always leaving. It doesn't matter what I say or what I do. I can be four feet away from, yelling and screaming in his ear and he just tunes me out. Sometimes he literally put his hand in my face and says, 'Speak to the hand, Alberta.' I HATE that. I yell at him, I say things to him, I say things about him I'd never say to anyone else just to get his attention and he just gets up and walks out of the room. I want you to fix Bert! I want you to make him stop leaving."
"
Okay. Thank you for that," the counselor replies, and he turns to Bert and says, "
So, Bert, your wife says you leave too much. Tell me, if that's correct, why do you leave?"
What's Bert's answer likely to be?
Bert's answer is likely to be, "
Because she yells!!!"
So we see at work a very common set of very real dynamics that occur in relationships. In this case yelling begets leaving which beget more yelling which begets more leaving. A causes B causes A.
A <-------> B.
If I knew how to draw a circle in the cyberpost I'd place "
yelling" at the top of a circle with an arrow drawn down to "
leaving" at the bottom of the circle with an arrow drawn "
upward" to the word. Drawn this way it would be visually easier to see the
reciprocal nature of the conflict Alberta and Bert seek to solve. The problems persist because no amount of yelling will ever make the leaver stop leaving. Likewise, no amount of leaving will ever make the yeller stop yelling. The leaving might provide a brief respite from the yelling because the yeller is out of earshot, but it does not solve the larger problem within the relationship.
The only way for Alberta and Bert to solve the problem is for the yeller to take responsibility for herself and stop yelling, and the leaver to take responsibility for the leaving.
The problem is not linear. It is
reciprocal.
Because both individuals are contributing to the problem
both individuals will have to contribute something to the solution if they want the problem solved. And, of course, if the problem is all one-sided then the problem
and the solution are the sole responsibility of the one causing the problem. But the truth of relationships is that is rarely the case. The problem is more often than not reciprocal, not linear. It is a mutually shared problem in search of a
mutually satisfying solution.
Which means when a person is asked, "
Why.......?" there are two ways to answer the question. The first is taking responsibility for our own thoughts, choices, and actions and explain ourselves from within ourselves. The second is to explain ourselves through the perceptions we have of others, and those perceptions are usually negative. In the case of Alberta it might look like this:
- Why do you yell? Because I feel ignored and that make me feel left out of my own marriage.
- Why do you yell? Because Bert always leaves. He cares nothing about me and likes his football games more than me.
In the case of Bert, it might look something like,
- Why do you leave? Because I don't like being yelled at. It reminds me of my mother during the time in my youth just before my parents divorced.
- Why do you leave? Because she's an evil shrew who doesn't love me or know how to have a civil conversation.
Which
type of answer is more likely to help A and B solve their mutually share problem and find a mutually satisfying solution. The first answer in each example, of course. It is only when each person takes responsibility for themselves and stops explaining to the other person why the other person is the problem that anything healthy is accomplished.
So.....
It will be best for you to examine yourself and figure out why it is you don't like to want to discuss your views with people who have different points of view. It is NOT because the other person of the other person. It is not because different points of view exist. It's a Proverbs 23:7 and Luke 6:45 condition where out of the things within us we speak and act.
There is absolutely no reason two Christians cannot discuss their differences and the onus is always on the person bringing views he self-acknowledges are different into a discussion board.
I think you'll find I've been kind, patient, inviting, encouraging, and providing plenty of basis for having confidence a polite and respectful conversation can be had.
That is, in fact, the very standard I held out as the goal even though untrue things about me personally were said. The statement beginning with, "
I think you are being too forward...." is an example of the problem to be solved. Even if I was "
too forward," at no point was more forwardness rude or disrespectful.
Perhaps, but what are
you being. Try not to be so concerned about others at the expense of your own awareness of your own actions. You take responsibility for your half of the conversation, and I take responsibility for my half of the conversation. If we both purpose to be well-mannered and respectful there shouldn't be any problems. So far
everyone who has bothered to reply to this op has disagreed. It would be completely understandable for anyone in that position to feel defensive. Understandable, but not helpful. The posters who bothered to reply did so to some degree because a discussion was desired.
That is the purpose of the forum.
No one expects you to
debate anything with rude or disrespectful posters. Everyone expects you to
discuss positions you've asserted knowing many will disagree, and believing, "
I don't expect many to agree because I don't think many read and study the Bible very much...."
You came into a Christian discussion board and posted views with which you already believed many disagree.
You came into a Christian discussion board already expecting not many would agree.
You came into a Christian discussion board already thinking many don't read and study the Bible very much.
You came into a Christian discussion board not wanting to discuss the views you posted.
.
What are
you being?
Last chance. I invite you to discuss the contents of this opening post with the mutually shared method of...
a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture,
...as the standard we can both expect of one another.
I'll even give you a place to start. In an earlier post I read you state "
Israel has a priesthood; but Christians are a 'priesthood'!" Are you aware
that priesthood status was a promise of the Old Testament covenant? Speaking to the gather Hebrews in Exodus 19, before they had entered the promised land or become a geo-political nation-state God said he would make them "
a kingdom of priests." I quoted Peter applying that Old Testament
covenant promise to the saints (not just Jewish converts). You have gone on record stating Christians
are a priesthood.
Can you see how your own belief shows Christians do in fact have a covenant with God?
We are the promised priesthood of God's covenant?
(my apologies for the mength)
). You,