Hell Calls: Are they acceptable or not ?

2

Comments

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Dafyd

    What I had more in mind was the reason which prompted the latest hell call. It should be reasonable enough to cite the Bible in defence of your opinion as long as you can back up your argument. I'm a liberal myself but I recognise that there are other hermeneutics. And it creates a more inclusive discussion.

    In Purg, it's not the norm, or seen as acceptable really, to say 'The Bible says so, therefore it's right - end of story.' It shuts down discussion, suggesting that if you disagree, you are disagreeing with God. In reality, everyone has different interpretations of the Bible, and some take it more literally, and some see it as an absolute, flawless authority, while others don't. So discussion needs to be aware of these different approaches and to express one's own thought process and logic, rather than simply throwing around Bible passages.

  • Although I haven't been called to hell yet, I've been told home truths there of which I was unaware. We can't try to improve what we do unless we know what we are doing wrong. Sometimes we need a blunt instrument to drive it into our thick skulls.

    A discussion thread can also be derailed by spats between individuals, or by someone with a particularly annoying posting style. Knowing that there is somewhere else to take these things helps keep the other boards on track.

    So yes, there is a place for the hell call, in my opinion.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    I am glad to hear that you messenger them Fineline. I think that reconciliation should always be the goal of living together well in a community.


    Reconciliation can’t happen without honesty. Honesty can’t happen without saying how we feel.

    I wrote the OP because I was both amused and exasperated. I was amused that folk were being rebuked for arguing in Purg of all places.

    What I had to say was personal - and I also wanted to know why the poster thought they could question another poster’s spiritual devotion. This was very personal (ie not suitable for Purg) and really annoying and I wanted to point that out.

    Like @Eutychus said - what the callee and other posters then said was up to them. They are adults and don’t need micromanaging. The hosts here are not ‘elders’, they are hosts (moderators).
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Can I co-opt some of you to attend my church leaders' meeting tonight?
  • MrsBeakyMrsBeaky Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    Thank you for your genuine answers. I have seen posts querying where Wild Haggis and Lilbuddha are. But you know what happened to them. They received hell calls and left the ship.
    Both are free to resume posting at any time. @lilbuddha has lurked since she stopped posting. And if you look back over the posting history of both of those people, you will see that they were not exactly above dishing it out themselves.

    Point of clarification for me, no agenda.
    What is the definition of a lurker? The word has dodgy associations for me but I do understand that we need to use it.
    I am on the Ship most days but I do not post often....however in my own head I interact with lots of Shipmates and I pray too so I feel I'm part of this community and that means a lot to me. But the rest of you might well not see me as such due to my limited interaction.
    But does my infrequency of posting make me a lurker?!
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    @Fineline

    I agree that simply citing a text is not a good argument. But not everyone has reached the level of knowing how to present a well reasoned case. And this is what other posters can demonstrate how to do. To encounter a very hostile response isn't encouraging someone to progress in their ability to debate the Bible. And it may well be deterring people from entering into the theology discussions and offering a more inclusive range of opinions. We can all defend our own hermeneutics and we can learn from the free expression of others views. I certainly have and I particularly like to hear the angles with which I am less familiar.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    @MrsBeaky

    My husband is a lurker on Facebook. He reads but never comments. He often comments to me about ‘so-and-so’ and what they are up to and shows me their photos. But the poster would never know. He’s on my Guide Dog owners page and reads it every day - never ‘likes’ or comments, ever.

    Nothing dodgy at all, just a super-introvert. There are a lot of introverts who are fine chatting on forums, not my husband!
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Fineline

    I agree that simply citing a text is not a good argument. But not everyone has reached the level of knowing how to present a well reasoned case. And this is what other posters can demonstrate how to do. To encounter a very hostile response isn't encouraging someone to progress in their ability to debate the Bible. And it may well be deterring people from entering into the theology discussions and offering a more inclusive range of opinions.

    Do you really think my Hell call was ‘very hostile’? If so, in what way?

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    I think that's what a hell call is. But I'm making a general comment here that simply rebuffing or dismissing someone comments doesn't raise the level of debate or encourage participation in them. It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    [more x-posts]
    Rublev wrote: »
    I am glad to hear that you messenger them Fineline. I think that reconciliation should always be the goal of living together well in a community.
    One thing I've become aware of in real life thanks to my experience on the Ship is that Christians are conflict-avoidant; many people seem to think conflict is a sin. As a result they bottle everything up, guiltily, and adopt passive-aggressive behaviour that festers and leads to all sorts of manipulative behaviour. This can eventually blow up spectacularly and destructively.

    Yes. This. I am on quite a few FB Bible groups where this happens. Where if people disagree, or express the natural anger/upset with someone that so easily happens when people disagree, this is seen as unacceptable, unChristian behaviour, and they are kicked out. And the rest of the group are then informed in an announcement by Admin that this is a Christian group and they don't tolerate anyone being mean to each other. One group admin goes so far as to say that any disagreement is of the devil, and sees the people she kicks out as devil followers. Some people have left her group and started their own Bible group, and she makes it quite clear that she sees this as a demonic group for people who follow the devil. Sometimes if someone challenges her directly in an angry or upset way, she posts a 'poor me - I'm such a nice person working so hard to admin this group and I'm being bullied' post (after she's kicked the person out of the group). This isn't healthy. This is passive aggressive. But she sees it that for the group to be Christ-centred, everyone needs to be nice and pleasant and agreeable and getting on well together, and she is enabling that to happen by kicking out the trouble makers.

    When you allow disagreement, when you don't automatically silence or kick out anyone who gets angry or upset or challenges your views, but give them space to work it out, it does get messy, and some people do abuse this, but it allows for emotion to be okay, for disagreeement to be okay, for very different and conflicting attitudes to exist, for discomfort and negative feelings to exist, to be expressed, acknowledged and accepted. It can therefore stop people feeling the need to retreat to their comfort zone and shut out anything they perceive as negative. Which is, in my view, quite a positive thing, because people who do that tend to shut out the marginalised people in society, and live in their cosy holy huddles.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    I think that's what a hell call is. But I'm making a general comment here that simply rebuffing or dismissing someone comments doesn't raise the level of debate or encourage participation in them. It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.

    That’s my point.

    Hell isn’t for rebuffing or dismissing comments - it’s for talking them through honestly - but on a personal level which isn’t allowed in Purg.

    Once again - see the ‘Cancer sucks’ thread.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    [even more x-posts]

    @MrsBeaky : what @Boogie said. It just means somebody who doesn't post a lot, or at all.

    As has been said, nobody is forced to post, or indeed register.

    It's worth reminding everybody that anyone on the internet can read what's posted here.

    @Rublev it sounds to me as if at least part of your beef is a personal one with @Boogie. If that's what it is, the place to challenge her is not here, but on the relevant Hell thread. People challenge Hell calls, on the Hell call thread in question, all the time.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    I think that's what a hell call is. But I'm making a general comment here that simply rebuffing or dismissing someone comments doesn't raise the level of debate or encourage participation in them. It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.

    It's not possible to offer a counter argument to someone who says that if you disagree with them, you are disagreeing with God. And that anyone continuing to argue is being ungodly.

    The idea that this kind of discussion-crushing comment can somehow be accommodated on a discussion board is quite ridiculous.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    @Eutychus

    It would be complete hypocrisy to do that given my OP.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Eutychus

    It would be complete hypocrisy to do that given my OP.

    @mr cheesy is referring to what @Brother Jude did - not you.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.

    If I may say so, that's something that you singularly don't do in many of the threads you start.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    @mr cheesy

    Have you ever tried to do it? Or is it more fun to come back with a zingy one liner?
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    @Eutychus

    Of course you may say so. I think you are one of the best examples of providing well reasoned explanations to people on the ship.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Eutychus

    It would be complete hypocrisy to do that given my OP.

    It's getting confusing working out who's referring to what given the posting rate here. I think you mean it would be hypocritical of you to post in Hell when you're against it.

    That said: you didn't actually say you were against Hell in the way you framed your OP, or say anything about not posting it. If that's what you really thought, then it was your OP that was hypocritical.

    Once again the rules are, if you must make it personal, take it to Hell (or refrain). People shouldn't try and circumvent the rules by being passive-aggressive elsewhere.
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Eutychus

    Of course you may say so. I think you are one of the best examples of providing well reasoned explanations to people on the ship.

    Thank you. The question is, do you recognise yourself in what I wrote?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    I think that's what a hell call is. But I'm making a general comment here that simply rebuffing or dismissing someone comments doesn't raise the level of debate or encourage participation in them. It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.

    It's not possible to offer a counter argument to someone who says that if you disagree with them, you are disagreeing with God. And that anyone continuing to argue is being ungodly.

    The idea that this kind of discussion-crushing comment can somehow be accommodated on a discussion board is quite ridiculous.

    Yes, it can be very harmful to people being constantly told they are disagreeing with God, that they aren't real Christians, etc., because they are expressing different views from a certain accepted interpretation of the norm. That sort of thing either drives people away from their faith, or narrows their faith to one based on fear of being real, and then they pass on that fear based faith to others.

    The only intelligent response to someone doing this is to point out what they are doing, and how they are making it impossible for people to argue with them, and how this is harmful. And that is what people were doing in that Purg thread. Often in a dismissive way, because the person didn't seem interested in engaging except on his own terms. And because it gets to a point where it is no longer appropriate for Purg. So then Boogie took it to Hell, where it could be elaborated on more. You can't spend ages in Purg talking about someone's posting style, because then it distracts from the topic.
  • @Rublev - I suggest you read some of the Dead Horses threads where we slug out discuss a range of topics, usually based on understandings of religions from the Bible, often with reference to counter Biblical arguments. Seriously - we debate homosexuality, creation, inerrancy and male headship, all of which things that are understood as coming from the Bible, but can be countered with the Bible too.
  • Stop digging a hole, Rublev.

    Boogie is responsible for her own Hell calls not the Ship as a 'community.'
  • Rublev wrote: »
    @mr cheesy

    Have you ever tried to do it? Or is it more fun to come back with a zingy one liner?

    I've tried many things in all the years I've been here.

    I draw the line at someone who thinks they speak the words of God and who then makes stupid assertions about the godliness of anyone who disagrees.

    That presses my buttons.

    If you want to play fluffy bunnies with someone who posts like that, you are free to try. But I'm not playing.

    Anyone who does that to any other shipmate, in particular a well-known personality here who has an extensive record of thought on the topic, deserves to be taken apart in Hell.

    Because they don't actually want discussion, they want to pontificate.
  • Boogie is responsible for her own Hell calls not the Ship as a 'community.'

    She is, but the community is set up in a way that allows her to do that. Discussing whether that set-up is valid is a reasonable use of Styx.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Boogie is responsible for her own Hell calls not the Ship as a 'community.'

    She is, but the community is set up in a way that allows her to do that. Discussing whether that set-up is valid is a reasonable use of Styx.

    Yes, and it would be good to keep that aspect separate from clobbering @Boogie, which belongs in Hell or nowhere.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    This is getting rather involved. And my objection is to hell calls in principle as being an overly destructive and drastic solution to disagreement. You are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. And that hell is intended as a mechanism of reconciliation rather than the dark side of the ship.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    This is getting rather involved. And my objection is to hell calls in principle as being an overly destructive and drastic solution to disagreement. You are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. And that hell is intended as a mechanism of reconciliation rather than the dark side of the ship.

    Yes.

    That's the deal. Either like it or lump it. Or something.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Well, that has been very enlightening and illuminating. Thank you all again for your honesty.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    And my objection is to hell calls in principle as being an overly destructive and drastic solution to disagreement.
    That is a fair challenge, and we are busy discussing it, which is what the Styx is for.

    But it would have been much more honest to say so straight up in your OP.
    You are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. And that hell is intended as a mechanism of reconciliation rather than the dark side of the ship.

    I think all mechanisms and institutions under the sun are inevitably flawed and that we need to recognise this. Given that recognition, I think Hell is useful.

    Hell is intended first and foremost as a place to contain things that don't belong anywhere else. This includes but is not limited to conflicts, as several people have explained upthread. As often as not, having a space to air conflicts out of the general discussion results in resolution. The resolution is not by design, but it happens, and probably helps contribute to preserving such diversity as there is on the Ship.

    Hell is not an unlimited playground for people to be "dark" in. Look back at how @Romanlion came to be banned and the ensuing discussion to get some idea of its limits.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The state of Christendom suggests that we are not very good at either dealing with conflicts or managing reconciliation. Maybe because we aren't all that brilliant at forgiveness in practice, however much we may espouse it as a matter of dogma.

    I think Eutychus is right. Suppressing unresolved conflicts isn't a good idea. We advise folks (Commandments 3 and 4) to take them to Hell or drop them. Dropping conflicts does not mean sitting resentfully on them. I think the Ship approach is a good deal more honest than is found in some local churches.

    "We come to you in love to tell you to toe the party line. We come to you in love and encourage you to forgive X (so we can avoid taking sides or exercising a proper discipline).". I've seen both of those and they are neithet edifying nor helpful.

    Speaking the truth in love is harder than we think.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Even if someone receives a hell call, they do not need to respond, read or in any way acknowledge it.

    Indeed. Ignore it and it very well may just go away.

    I think I've been called to hell only once in all the years I've been on board, and it was by a Shipmate who himself had been called to hell so many times that he might as well have grown a pointed tail and his skin might as well have turned red. I ignored it, and it went away.

    The nice thing about "Today's Active Threads" on the old Ship and "Recent Discussions" on the new Ship, both of which have always been the primary ways in which I access the Ship, is that the lets you see everything that has been recently posted, and then you are free to open those threads that appeal and ignore those threads, including hell calls, that don't.

    All that said, I have always marveled at the way that seemingly perfectly agreeable Shipmates can turn downright caustic when they're posting in hell.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    MrsBeaky wrote: »
    What is the definition of a lurker?

    I've always understood the term to refer to someone who reads the Ship but has never applied for membership and so cannot post.
  • MrsBeaky wrote: »
    What is the definition of a lurker?

    I've always understood the term to refer to someone who reads the Ship but has never applied for membership and so cannot post.

    I think that was originally the idea but the use of the term became more elastic when lurkers (who had never posted) became irregular posters but retained a self-identity as a lurker.

    Now I think it is just a general term for someone who doesn't regularly post.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    I remember what it was like before the Hell board was set up. Two people would disagree on one thread with personal insults. When one of them posted on another thread, the other would say, "I don't see how anyone with your opinions on X could possibly say that." The argument and insults would continue. Sometimes it spread over four of five threads, making it impossible for other shippies to post on the actual thread topics. I think that setting up the Hell board saved the ship.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I love what Sartre said through one of his characters in No Exit, " Hell is other people".
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Rublev wrote: »
    <snip>It should be reasonable enough to cite the Bible in defence of your opinion as long as you can back up your argument.<snip>
    I think you’ll mostly find that it is OK for people to cite the Bible provided it is remembered that (a) not everyone on the Ship is a Christian, and it doesn’t claim to be a ‘Christian website’™️; (b) not everyone will necessarily agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible; (c) not everyone will agree that it should be applied in the way a poster suggests.

    Posting as if a Bible verse is an open and shut answer to a particular issue which any person who has prayerfully read the Bible should know is liable to attract ire. It will usually take the form af a more or less gentle ribbing about such a stance, but if that’s not effective people may get crosser - especially if it is implied that they are not a proper Christian, or are not taking the Bible seriously.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Rublev wrote: »
    @Dafyd

    What I had more in mind was the reason which prompted the latest hell call. It should be reasonable enough to cite the Bible in defence of your opinion as long as you can back up your argument. I'm a liberal myself but I recognise that there are other hermeneutics. And it creates a more inclusive discussion.

    If people had felt that the Bible citation had actually been followed by backing up the argument, I doubt the Hell call would have happened.

  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    If you want a further comment then I would say that theology is not boring, it is exciting and it is fascinating. And it is for everyone. You don't need a library to study it because if you go online you can research all the information that you need. And even if you were stranded on a desert island with a Bible the Holy Spirit could reveal the deeper meanings of it to you. So nobody should feel intimidated or disempowered about taking part in any discussions. And we can all aspire to present as reasoned an argument as Eutychus.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    If you want a further comment then I would say that theology is not boring, it is exciting and it is fascinating. And it is for everyone.
    What does that have to do with what anyone has said?

    The issue had nothing to do with whether theology is boring or interesting, or is available to everyone or just for the select few. It had to so with being told "That's what the Bible says. Don't take my word for it; go pray on it."

    That is the opposite of discussion. There's no attempt to say why the Bible should be interpreted in a particular way. It's dismissive and passive-aggressive—"Don't believe me? Well then, go pray on it and God will tell you I'm right."

  • Rublev wrote: »
    This is getting rather involved. And my objection is to hell calls in principle as being an overly destructive and drastic solution to disagreement. You are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. And that hell is intended as a mechanism of reconciliation rather than the dark side of the ship.

    Yes and no. Hell is about containment. People will argue and disagree with each other. It's better to let them do that in a dedicated space than all over the Ship or via PM. Sometimes those discussions lead to a reconciliation or a change of heart, but not always.

    Reading or participating on the Hell board isn't compulsory. There are plenty of Shipmates who don't go near the place.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    <snip>It should be reasonable enough to cite the Bible in defence of your opinion as long as you can back up your argument.<snip>
    I think you’ll mostly find that it is OK for people to cite the Bible provided it is remembered that (a) not everyone on the Ship is a Christian, and it doesn’t claim to be a ‘Christian website’™️; (b) not everyone will necessarily agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible; (c) not everyone will agree that it should be applied in the way a poster suggests.

    Posting as if a Bible verse is an open and shut answer to a particular issue which any person who has prayerfully read the Bible should know is liable to attract ire. It will usually take the form af a more or less gentle ribbing about such a stance, but if that’s not effective people may get crosser - especially if it is implied that they are not a proper Christian, or are not taking the Bible seriously.

    To develop a) slightly. Just smacking a few Bible verses down in support of your argument doesn't work if you're discussing an issue with someone who doesn't consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority. You need to be able to bring in other things to support your case as well. Otherwise you just end up shouting across each other in some kind of never ending, argumentative death loop ...

    And that's before you get to b) and c)
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Theology is the exploration of the functional limits of make-believe. So, not necessarily for everyone.

    Others will disagree. If they feel a need to get to some honest roots of that matter that involve something personal about me, they are able to try in Hell. Handy having such a possibility, considering the diversity of real humans.
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    I think there is a better way to go about it than appealing to the worst side in human nature. A rebuke from a recognised elder of the community when someone commits an error is very much in the NT tradition. A hell call inviting people to join in with attacking someone is not.

    We have those, they are called admins. They are the true elders of the community.

    But what you propose is simply not in line with how human beings function in groups, and we are working toward the Kingdom, not inhabiting it.

    Haven't you noticed in a restaurant if you have one baby crying then all of a sudden every baby is crying, not for any discernible reason except in sympathy? Haven't you noticed how the full throated howl of an infant raises every hackle in the room? It's because that cry is in every one of us, and we have to choke on it.

    There's HUGE energy required to tamp down those feelings in ourselves, and as other posters have noted, if we are not given a legitimate arena for letting them off, then the cancer of micro-aggressions takes over and the organism succumbs to the cumulative disease of its members.

    There's deep neurology at work in the resolution of trauma and hell provides a legitimate forum for revisiting the wound and renegotiating the outcome.

    There is no lasting peace until everyone knows the peace within, and IMO we're not going to get there if we don't have space to act out our dramas. And the bully-victim dyanamic is one our favorite dramatic go-tos. Maybe one day we'll al have had a turn at each polarity and decide it's boring let's find something else to dramatize. But until then, hell is IMO a Good Thing for the community.

    AFF





  • Rublev wrote: »
    I think there is a better way to go about it than appealing to the worst side in human nature. A rebuke from a recognised elder of the community when someone commits an error is very much in the NT tradition. A hell call inviting people to join in with attacking someone is not.

    We have those, they are called admins. They are the true elders of the community.

    But what you propose is simply not in line with how human beings function in groups, and we are working toward the Kingdom, not inhabiting it.

    Haven't you noticed in a restaurant if you have one baby crying then all of a sudden every baby is crying, not for any discernible reason except in sympathy? Haven't you noticed how the full throated howl of an infant raises every hackle in the room? It's because that cry is in every one of us, and we have to choke on it.

    There's HUGE energy required to tamp down those feelings in ourselves, and as other posters have noted, if we are not given a legitimate arena for letting them off, then the cancer of micro-aggressions takes over and the organism succumbs to the cumulative disease of its members.

    There's deep neurology at work in the resolution of trauma and hell provides a legitimate forum for revisiting the wound and renegotiating the outcome.

    There is no lasting peace until everyone knows the peace within, and IMO we're not going to get there if we don't have space to act out our dramas. And the bully-victim dyanamic is one our favorite dramatic go-tos. Maybe one day we'll al have had a turn at each polarity and decide it's boring let's find something else to dramatize. But until then, hell is IMO a Good Thing for the community.

    AFF


    That's the origin and the effect of this "noise", it is well worth containing it rather than allow any thread on any board to become a festering pit of passive-aggression. With so many British posters this can happen all too easily.

    The only online community I have been on that didn't require something like "Hell" was a South Wales rugby site, and it worked because, despite pseudonyms, everyone was known to someone in RL. So everyone behaved like they were in a clubhouse on a Saturday night. Plenty of banter but the limits were understood.
  • The road to hell wasn't paved in a day. For most people.
    A few people inadvertently fall into the tar. They get a little bit of heat, and then are helped out.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    @Dafyd

    What I had more in mind was the reason which prompted the latest hell call. It should be reasonable enough to cite the Bible in defence of your opinion as long as you can back up your argument. I'm a liberal myself but I recognise that there are other hermeneutics. And it creates a more inclusive discussion.

    IMHO it was NOT the simple fact of citing the Bible in defence of one's argument. I'm an inerrantist and minor textual scholar and I probably cling to the text more than 80% of posters here. Nobody has called me to Hell for it.
    The problem was the tone. Anything that smacks of pride, particularly spiritual pride, pharisaism, or "Let me correct your attitude for you from my lofty height" is going to result in a Hell call eventually.
  • @Rublev I appreciate the earnest calling out pf issues you see, partially on my behalf.

    That said I feel the need to state, as pertaining to the nature of this thread, that the calling to Hell I received did, after the initial obnoxious bluster and pomp was finished, allow me to better understand how I was being misunderstood, and thusly, from whence the annoyance & contempt with which I was being met had arisen
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    I think that's what a hell call is. But I'm making a general comment here that simply rebuffing or dismissing someone comments doesn't raise the level of debate or encourage participation in them. It's better to offer a better counter argument to them.

    It's not possible to offer a counter argument to someone who says that if you disagree with them, you are disagreeing with God. And that anyone continuing to argue is being ungodly.

    The idea that this kind of discussion-crushing comment can somehow be accommodated on a discussion board is quite ridiculous.

    It is in fact possible. You point out that the person is not God, that his/her opinions are not divinely inspired, and that making such a judgment ("ungodly") of one's fellow posters is above his/her pay grade. The problem is that saying these things is so close to flash point that the flames usually start with the very next post.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    This is getting rather involved. And my objection is to hell calls in principle as being an overly destructive and drastic solution to disagreement. You are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. And that hell is intended as a mechanism of reconciliation rather than the dark side of the ship.

    Since it's not clear who "You" is, I'll take a stab. The Ship has a long, long history with Hell, and has tried other methods of dealing with conflict. None has worked as well as Hell in containing personal conflict and preventing it from swamping the other boards. Hell is neither "the dark side of the ship" (expressing THAT too often will get you planked) nor "a mechanism for reconciliation"--at least not intentionally. It is purely and simply a containment chamber. The fact that it often brings about reconciliation, or repentance, is an uncovenanted blessing. But it is not the primary purpose of Hell. That is simply containment.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    An official reminder, because it would be a Bad Thing if this thread were to go off the rails: the Styx is for discussion of Ship's business. Please stay on the topic of the function of Hell for the Ship's forums. Personal comments and criticisms must be taken to Hell. Discussion of what constitutes a strong argument and the place of citing the Bible in mounting arguments belongs in Purgatory.

    Ruth, Styx Host
Sign In or Register to comment.