Re: My thoughts on your posting -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:02:39 01/30/05 Sun
Author: Chris
Subject: Re: My thoughts on your posting
In reply to: Tony Lang 's message, "Re: My thoughts on your posting" on 09:25:29 01/30/05 Sun

I will support your suggestion that it is sometimes worthwile to search for a private conversation with UBFers via email, or if possible, personally, and over a longer amount of time. However, it can also be a frustrating experience, and it can be very time consuming, as you already experienced, since they are very indoctrinated. For ex members who have suffered from abuse or who are suffering from delusion about UBF it can also be a rather nerve-wracking experience. You are in the lucky situation that you have probably more free time than most of us and that you haven't made negative experiences yourself (for reasons that have already been discussed - you had been a UBF "guest" in Korea, not a "target object" for their trainings, you haven't been a committed "shepherd"). Therefore such private conversation is easier for you.

Another important point is that this is a public forum. If we allow that insane concepts like ("every church has problems, so problems need not be addressed") are not immediately refuted, the impression may arise for other readers that these concepts had some validity. We need to make pretty clear when crooked thougts creep in and reveal the errors in these thoughts. I admit that this may be sometimes an affront for the original poster, but it is not only he who is our audience, but a lot of other lurkers. In a private conversation, most of other would probably deal a little bit different with such people, would be able to tolerate more, and proceed slowly. In a public conversation, we cannot allow him to have a platform to spread UBF deceptive ideas and concepts unchallenged.

And by the way, I think there was no real affront or insult in the answers and replies, people only challenged his ideas and predications. I think he was treated fairly and appropriately given the situation that he posted on a public forum. Once more, on such a forum we simply cannot affort engaging in your slow "sugaring the pill" approach. This does not invalidate your otherwise good suggestions. They can be applied in private conversations, as long as "sugaring the pill" does not degenerate into compromizing with the truth, exaggerated flattering, hypocrisy or untruthfulness.

Maybe another positive application of your suggestion for improvement would be that we try to not only oppose wrong statements, but also try to build up a positive relationship and get the attraction and empathy of these kind of posters instead of repelling them. However, as you wrote, it is a fine art and sometimes impossible to combine these two things, speaking the truth without repelling people. Not everybody is perfect in this, and I frankly admit that I am pretty bad in it. We can only try to improve in this art.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Trying to start some meaningful debate -- Anonymous, 17:25:35 01/31/05 Mon