So, Johnny has stormed off over being offended and yet I’m still here 
How’s that for irony?
Muhahaha 
But seriously, when I first came to this forum over a year ago, it was with a sincere intent to learn more about UR. I was not looking to switch camps, so to speak, but after having a conversation with a very well-spoken guy at a party who was struggling with Calvinism and embracing UR, I thought it’d be worth a look. I never once took it lightly.
I appreciated the forum format, glanced over multiple threads and read the statement of faith and forum rules. One of the rules that immediately stood out was that one was not to denigrate or be overly critical of others views. I’m paraphrasing that, but it’s the gist of it. It goes against Jason’s definition of “fair-togetherness” and what is supposed to be one of the overall purposes of this forum i.e. to encourage and facilitate reasonable discussion.
Well, with threads like “Mark Driscoll Speaks with a Forked Tongue” and “John Piper Exposes the Dark Underbelly…”, you can imagine how a visiting Calvinist would feel here. But as if that were not enough, many of the posts that followed were written with such a spirit a vitriol and hatred. One of my first thoughts was, "So much for this UR ‘God of love changing peoples hearts’ ". I even admonished a particular UR, “He who says he loves God but hates his brother does not have the love of God in him.” This particular UR stated that it wasn’t personal against me, but how could a reasonable person otherwise take post after post in multiple threads?
At one point back then, Jason did try to intervene and was promptly flamed by a certain UR for his efforts. My overall take on all of the anti-Calvin posts by a few and the support of them by the many (and the deafening silence of the “moderators”, Jason being the lone exception that I recall-and even he in someways encouraged it) was like watching a bear in a circus, riding a tricycle and wearing a funny hat, while petulant children and teenagers encourage the poor thing by poking it and throwing popcorn and candy at it. The first time it has a sense of low-brow entertainment. After that, it’s just sad and a reflection on the participants.
So, it seemed like deja-vu all over again when recently Alex started a new topic about people rejoicing in Heaven over the suffering of the damned. A 140 page thesis was attached. I quickly skimmed over the attachement and was less than impressed. I have not gone to college or have ever written any type of paper, so who am I to criticize, but this struck me as a young guy trying to get his Masters or Doctorate or whatever and felt that he had to come with something eye-catching.
Like, “If you can’t be good, and you can’t be original, just be controversial”. But to be honest, that’s pretty much my take on Alex’s mindset posting that in the first place. What was he hoping to accomplish? “Gee, I just think it’s be helpful for us to know what our most extreme opponents think?” Tensions were already high lately from the homosexual thread and recently with a couple of others. My first thought when Alex posted it was, “This is total trolling and baiting!” Well, the wrong one took the bait. I decided to sit back and watch the bear and the kids do their thing, and boy did they ever! A particular UR predictably did what he does, saying Calvinism is of the devil, it’s pornography and should be flushed down the toilet, blah blah blah. But what really prompted me to start this thread was that Alex-an administrator no less!-never did anything to enforce his own rules. He even bantered with the particular UR after the imflammatory posts were made!
Let me say this: I can handle the projectile vomiting of anti-Calvinist sentiment. I can handle all of the internet posturing, etc. My criticism is that the rules of this forum are not enforced and that it’s to the forum’s detriment. One thing that seemed to strike me-maybe I’m wrong-that when I started lurking again a month or so, was that the forum didn’t seem too lively. That’s what happens when the moderation renders itself impotent. Try to find where myself, oxymoron, theopologetics, Luke or any other Calvinist said anything even remotely as hateful about UR as what’s tolerated here. Thoughtful people of other Christian beliefs will rightly leave and you’re left with a circle jerk of the same 6 or 7 posters, the occasional newcomer and threads that seldom exceed 1 page. The parable of the wedding feast thread is a prime example.
If you are a mod or an admin…ACT LIKE IT! To whom much is given, much is required. Where’s James Goetz, Sonia, Cindy, Melchizadek etc when all of this is going on? Jason should not have to be the only one here doing the heavy lifting. And when he did try fulfill the moderator’s duty, how’d that work out? Why should any poster suddenly feel compelled to abide by the rules when they’ve never been enforced before-unless you’re Aaron Curry or True Disciple?
If you have no problem with people flagrantly violating your rules, change your rules. Drop the faux “fair-togetherness” “what if Jesus happened to read your post” schtick and just come out and say what’s real and can be expected. For example:
“We are a website committed to what we believe to be the truth of UR. This is our primary focus. NonUR members are welcomed to post, but please be aware that you may have your theology denigrated, mocked, openly despised, multiple lame strawman arguements raised and gross mischaracterisations etc. If you can’t deal with that, leave. This is the internet, no one is forcing you to be here. Go start your own website. You’ve been warned!”
I believe it was Holden Caufield who said, “Give me an honest con man over a false religious man any day”.
Well, that’s all for now.
Matt
Matt, I haven’t found the people in this forum like that at all. Though I believe in the universal reconciliation of all people, I vary from most posters’ beliefs a great deal in other matters. For example, most, and one individual in particular, are convinced Trinitarians. I am not a Trinitarian. Yet, no one has “denigrated, mocked, openly despised, etc.” my position. During all the time I have been on the forum, I have felt attacked by only one individual, and it wasn’t about my Christology.
Actually I find the vast majority of contributors quite respectful of other people’s views, and by taking their contributions into account, it is possible to learn a great deal—or at least be better informed.
If this forum were such as you described, I would have been gone long ago. But it isn’t. It is one of only two forums to which I post regularily.
Paidion,
Several members have however openly mocked and despised Calvinism on a regular basis, and specifically in regard to Jaxxen in recent weeks, in flagrant defiance of the forum rule about this. Johnny and the others certainly thought they were doing the right thing thereby, but Jaxxen’s description is not exaggerated in those details.
Jaxxen,
I’m going to modify your thread title a bit, as calling out Johnny after things have finally quieted down could also be regarded as flamebaiting.
Alex was definitely not trolling for anti-Calv comments by posting the paper; he was following the mandate of the forum by providing data to chew over, on an admittedly extreme Calv position. Considering the forum temperament in days recently prior to that thread, I think we can reasonably agree it ought to have been saved for later, though.
We aren’t only tolerant of anti-Calvs breaking the no-demonizing rule, but I can’t deny as a matter of demonstrable practice we’re more tolerant of them than of other people breaking the rule. (So for example we didn’t shut down “True Disciple” off the bat, but if he had kept at it for more than a few days we would have instituted warnings and eventually bans, since he didn’t seem as much on the ball as BAaron, who was canny enough to edge his toe up to and slightly over the line on a long-term basis.) Anti-Calvs would also demonstrably complain that we aren’t fairly tolerant of them in the slightest, and that we shouldn’t have such a rule (or not to protect Calvinism and Calvinists anyway). This extra license likely has more to do with us not wanting to offend regular posters and contributors.
Member activity fluctuates on a semi-random basis; bad feelings on the forum contributes somewhat, but members often just ignore threads that look like trouble (or which develop into looking like trouble) and go read something else instead. I have to admit that this includes the ad/mods to some degree; despite accusations from other quarters of our tyrannical despotism, we don’t actually enjoy lowering the boom (or the boom-threat) on members, much less trying to reason with a catfight in progress. Eagerness to put people in the penalty box has never once been a criteria for invitation.
Anyway, we’re currently working on a sturdier version of the no-demonizing rule. Your dissatisfaction and criticism of the forum is noted, and as you know I largely agree with it; I’m also creating an ad/mod thread for consideration and discussion of your criticisms. Thank you for speaking up and contributing them.
It’s fair enough that you bring this up Jaxxen. However please be aware that it’s very hard & time consuming (we’re all volunteers, & most of us also have children to look after & fulltime jobs) to moderate online discussions, particularly when you don’t want to trample on people’s freedom of speech. Also when someone is angry it’s hard to get them to tone down - a “heavy hand” usually just fires them up more. I hope you noticed that Cindy & I did politely disagree with people being anti-Calvinists.
It’s also difficult because to those who aren’t Calvinists, Calvinism is very frustrating in some areas (e.g. “rejoicing at those in hell”, “God only loves some people”). Now I realise that doesn’t entitle non-Calvinists to hate Calvinists but people need to be able to express to some degree their opposition to the theology. Unfortunately it’s very hard to do that without insulting those who hold it 
I posted the topic for the reasons I gave. It’s good to know the position of people who oppose you, and the thesis contains many of arguments that Calvinists regularly present - at least in my experience. “Rejoicing at those in hell” isn’t just something this student thought up, but I’ve debated it a few times when Calvinists have tried to convince me it’s a good thing 
None of us have time to read every post, so if you see something you don’t like, please don’t assume we’re silently approving but alert us straight away.
Alex,
I did notice that you and Cindy “did politely disagree with people being anti-Calvinists.”
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate all the effort you, Cindy, Jason and the other Admin’s put in for the benefit of others on this forum. So as you consider Matt’s comments, please do not be discouraged. I am sure that there are many like me who read a lot more than comment, and who are very thankful to God for all you do and appreciate the difficulties of the task at times.
Matt (Jaxxen),
Thank you for being bold enough and kind enough to offer your thoughts, as you endeavour to speak the truth in love.
Paidon, fwiw I believe that you’re a fair-minded, intelligent poster. From your perspective, my OP might seem over the top and not reflective of your experiences here, and that’s fine. Jason does agree with me, however, re my compaint-at least to a certain degree. I do not think everyone here is unhinged and would agree with you moreso than not for the most part you can certainly come across thoughtful, intelligent post(ers) profitable for learning and engaging. I am not slamming the whole forum by any means or my overall experience here: just one particular aspect of it. And my criticism is more for the health of the forum than my own sense of righteous indignation.
Paidon, I am convinced that the one reason why we have such a different experience in regard to our nonstandard UR theology being treated differently is the fact that you still are a UR and I’m a Calvinist. The gulf between a Calvinist and a UR is unbridegable, while the gulf between a nonTrinitarian UR and orthodox UR isn’t so vast. It may create for some interesting polemic, but in the end, y’all are on the same page. You can affirm or deny the diety of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the innerrancy / infallibility of Scripture, young earth / old earth, creation / evolution, land on either side of the homosexual debate, believe in purgatory or not, deny PSA etc etc, but ultimately you believe that every single human being is loved by God and will be in Heaven. Under that huge umbrella, there’s nothing worth getting too fired up about. Calvinism provokes a visceral reaction for reasons that are readily apparent. So again, when you contrast your belief to mine, it should make perfect sense as to why I’d feel that Calvinism is subjected to a criticism that quickly leaps over any forum policies.
Matt
Thanks Jason for responding and making what I believe is a pretty fair post. I’ve edited out my OP with re to using a certain poster’s name, with one exception at the first sentence. FWIW, I don’t necessarily feel that the forum leadership should make any changes, just enforce what’s in place.
Matt
In case there’s been any confusion or misunderstanding, please allow me to try to clarify my position: I have an overall respect and appreciation for this forum, its format and for the most part the way it is moderated. Believe me, I’ve seen a lot worse! My only real complaint has been in regard to how the moderators / admins have allowed their rule about not demonizing other peoples belief-but even that comes with a qualification: OF COURSE WE ARE ALL GOING TO DEMONIZE OTHERS BELIEFS ON SOME LEVEL!!! It comes with the territory of debating theology. The Jewish leadership accused Jesus of being in league with Satan. Jesus said the Jewish leadership does the will of their father, who is the devil.
Theology SHOULD invoke great passion! Whether you are a Calvinist 
, an Arminian or a UR, we all believe that we are contending for the truth of the true and living God as it has been revealed. Men have been murdered for their defense of their beliefs. If Calvinism is false, and yet we maintain that YHWH has indeed ordained that multitudes will be punished in ECT for His glory and UR is actually true, Calvinists have done great violence and blasphemy to YHWH. If, however, Reformed theology is true and UR is wrong, then UR is guilty of propagating the lie of Satan in the Garden saying, “You shall not surely die.” UR will bear the distinguishing mark of the false prophet crying, “Peace! Peace!”, when in fact there is no peace. One group or the other is calling good, evil and evil, good. With so much at stake, how can we not become passionate, and with that, cross some lines that would conflict with certain forum policy?
My complaint about the ignoring of the rule is not that certain posters have said bad things about the Doctrines of Grace and have hurt my tender feelings, but that what was said and HOW it was said was a violation. I know that this can be a slippery slope. It’s a bit like that remark on pornography…“Maybe I can’t define it, but I’ll know it when I see it.”
By having allowed and often encouraged certain posters to make over-the-top, inappropriate comments it did not facilitate anything profitable, reflected poorly on the leadership AND to top it off, some UR posters left when asked to simply abide and not be so crass! Anyway, like I said, it can be a slippery slope between saying, “XYZ is of the devil” and “Blah blah blah, this should be flushed down the toilet”. Hopefully, the more fair-minded folks of this forum can distinguish the difference.
Matt
can’t let this slide, as it is a gross oversimplification of events.
some of us “anti-calvs” have taken a break, to cool down, mainly. not because we were “instructed” to, but simply for sanity’s sake.
no offense intended to Matt or anyone else of this leaning intended (as far as that goes), but the rage was about two things:
-
that Miss Tea’s thread should NEVER have been used for debating. it was a therapeutic thread, explaining why she had not found satisfying peace (quite the contrary) from traditional hell doctrines. i am afraid that any attempt to rectify that with traditional hell doctrines, no matter how kindly meant, had exactly the opposite effect. it’s a bit like saying “i’ve always been afraid of dogs” and having someone present you with a huge ferocious dog and saying “no it’s FINE! he won’t bite YOU, just everyone else, on a random basis” (as per Calvinism, as your contributions could be judged (sorry, but that was what happened, because she was not just afraid for herself, but for everyone she knew!) or “don’t worry, the dog won’t bite you, as long as you don’t do x y or z” (as per TD’s similar misguided attempt at helping).
-
it should be obvious that God as presented by Calvinism comes across as capricious, a great lottery in the sky, that expects us to be pleased with the justice that some of us are saved when we ALL could be. but i won’t delve deeper into that again. at least understanding this point of view ought to give people pause for thought before baiting others with strong feelings on the subject. this was particularly inappropriate (as per point 1) on Miss Tea’s thread.
now i’m sure it was all meant kindly, and i’m also cognizant of the fact that you Matt at least suggested going elsewhere with the discussion. that’s appreciated. but what an odd place to suddenly start posting, especially after a period of lurking.
i for my part am sorry if i gave offense. but this whole “oh poor me, i’ve been so abused” (despite the denial that’s what this is) combined with the whole “oh look, i stayed, everyone else cried foul and left after starting a fight” (which btw contradicts what i’d been given to understand, that you had gone before all the other talk kicked off and thus nullifies your point…you aren’t ‘still here’. you left, and now you’ve come back - and you’ll pardon me for observing this, but it LOOKS like, to stir things up. that isn’t going to work. i am posting this to clarify and correct you, and then i am going back to normal) is not helpful, particularly after things calmed down again.
yes, it got a bit out of hand. i was partly responsible, and i apologise for that. and yes you’re right about debate getting passionate, etc etc.
i do agree that posting that bit about rejoicing over the damned was perhaps badly timed, but i don’t think it was malicious. Alex doesn’t seem the type to stir things up.
but the whole reason we were so angry in that instance was simply Miss Tea’s defaced thread (fixed, thankfully) and then being told off for being angry on her behalf at what looked like an agenda to post stuff that would cause angry debate and distress to someone hurting (which i think was a misjudgement, but that’s what it LOOKED like).
you may not agree with me, but i hope you can at least understand what i’m trying to say. i really don’t want to have to say this AGAIN, as i am sure i explained this before.
That’s very true, btw. I’m pretty sure you-all haven’t done anything because you were instructed to. (Not intended as wry sarcasm.)
Jaxxen’s complaints weren’t restricted to what happened in the Miss Tea reassurance thread, and he himself agreed he shouldn’t have gotten into technicals there (although he was trying to offer what he regards as superior reassurance about God’s wrath than what purga-u can offer. In that light it isn’t odd that he responded to Miss Tea’s plaints, just as the rest of us did.) Also, Jaxxen was instrumental in shutting down “True Disciple” who was badmouthing universalists. That really should have earned him a fairer hearing of what he was trying to do.
And Jaxxen has indicated in a prior post on this thread that he does understand the feelings behind point 2. But it’s the larger issues of fairly regular demonizing of Calvinism (and of Calvinists to some extent) that he was complaining about, not Miss Tea’s thread in particular.
For what it’s worth, I kind-of agree that Matt should have posted this by pm to the ad/mod groups. Doing it publicly stirs up emotions again.
Also, before anyone launches a defense: please take Matt’s line about repeating the lie of Satan to be an illustrative example of overreaching rhetoric against universalists. We all know if we’re wrong we still won’t have been making that kind of mistake (since in any case it turned out God wasn’t talking about sure and certain hopeless punishment. Otherwise neither Adam nor any of us would have any hope of salvation.)
contradicting myself to just briefly add that while i can sort of see why a Calvinist with eternal security would believe it really encouraging that one couldn’t lose one’s salvation (and i agree, selfishly, that is a LOVELY thought).
i don’t recall if we got into it there, but comparing this binary eternal destiny thing (when it affects loved ones mostly in this example) to a finite period of loving correction (which may hurt for some, but would likely be a GOOD kind of hurt, like Eustace having the too-tight dragon skin and golden bracelet taken off with Aslan’s help) is a bit straw man argument.
i can’t imagine Miss Tea would’ve had soul-destroying anguish over a shot period of purgation (whatever that form takes) followed by reconciliation. it’s the eternal void, the hopelessness that is terrifying and causes such anguish and despair among many Christians. i know this as i experienced it. 18 months of believing i had committed the “unpardonable sin” when i was a teenager. so i know something of Miss Tea’s anguish.
reassurance for her at the cost of reassurance about her loved ones wasn’t good enough…UR offers them hope, even if they DO have to endure some time of change in the afterlife…even if it’s unpleasant…it’s not hopeless.
that’s what i was trying to get across. again, i am not trying to be offensive, but this was how it looked to me, and i believe to the rest of the more angry-at-the-injustice-of-calvinism crew. and i’m sure he didn’t intend it to come across this way, but it was enough to enrage me personally, as i know what it feels like.
i hope i’ve cleared up any queries now and i can go back to doing what i’m meant to be doing tonight, which isn’t sitting on the net!
and no Jason, i doubt you’d be sarcastic 
as that would be contradictory to the whole tolerance thing you were so wisely councilling (not sarcastic either) lol
As an early founder, I have recently called for maintaining civil discourse. FWIW, I personally find Calvinism troubling and would reject any exclusivist version of it. But there have some occassions of name-calling and attacks on the character of those who see Calvinism as Biblical, that I find over-the-top and no more acceptable than if such tactics were used against me or against those who hold UR. I respect that passions can be aroused by beliefs than one finds unrighteous, but I am convinced that our forum will be most useful and constructive if we strive to concentrate on civilly outlining the case for each of our views.
Hi Matt –
Just to say that I’m having a break – that’s all. Neither Jason nor any other mods have told me to stop posting; I too was shocked at my response of shoving you aside on the thread that you entered on – although I had very strong reasons for this, on which I keep self counsel now. And I just thought I should take some time to reflect about things – hence the break for Lent. I’ve apologised to you and acknowledged the mistake publicly that caused offence.
Blessings
Dick
What if neither group has a clue?
What if the Bible doesn’t actually have a unified message? What if it is a collection of views from a variety of authors that simply are not reconcilable? And what if this is ok, because we’re not saved by our knowledge of God, but by the grace of God?
In the OT, you have people saying God wants blood sacrifices, and others saying he doesn’t; some say the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons, others say they’re not; some say racial purity is everything, others say not; some say kings are good, others say not; some say Jews should keep to themselves, others say not. The same is seen on a smaller scale in the NT with tensions flaring between Paul and Peter, Paul and Mark, Paul and James.
If the Calvinist God is real, how could you love him? If the universalist God is real, how could you not love him? That’s all I need to know.
Hey Corpse, I can understand what you’re trying to say. FWIW, I was not trying to oversimplify in order to portray myself as a poor saint amongst dirty, rotten UR’s. But then again, you didn’t say that. In hindsight, I can see how my posting in Miss Tea’s thread after lurking might seem suspect, but in fairness to me, TD had already touched off the fuse. I never thought, “I’m going to add to this girl’s afflictions!” Her topic, along with Joel’s on the Wedding Feast seemed like good one’s to get back into. Dick misunderstood my post and that created a little spat and from there, along with TD, her thread derailed. Even when I tried to bow out there was no putting the horses back in the barn.
Also, I really wasn’t trying to cultivate a “poor, abused me” attitude. If you are convinced that I am, so be it. I never left the forum, although it’s true that I didn’t log in and contribute to the “suffering of the damned” thread.
I feel my criticism I spoke of in this thread is legit and that seems to be justified by Jason and Bob Wilson. Grandpa Michael, too. If I appear to be a hypocrite or an agitator, well, there’s probably some truth in that-I don’t know what else I can say. Also, your example of the ferocious dog did make me chuckle 
Matt
Jason…and Corpse, for that matter, I guess my reasoning for doing this in public rather that private was a matter of thinking it’s gone on long enough, I want to make this case in public because it is a public issue. Like posting in Miss Tea’s thread, in retrospect there’s always a sense of, “I could’ve or should’ve done this better”. I can see why you or someone else might think I’m trying to stir the pot, but from my perspective I’m glad others have had a chance to read it.
Matt
Hi Dick, hope your Season of Lent is going good! I did understand that you’re taking a break, so I was a little surprised to see you pop up here. Personally, I never thought that anyone told you or CL to stop posting. I know that you’ve apologised to me in the past and frankly, I’ve never really had any issues with you or your style of posting. Plus, I’m sure I may have came across as confrontational re the Girardian view of the parable of the wedding feast, so for that I apolgise. I’ve said it before, you strike me as one of, if not the most, tender people on this forum. Now, go back to enjoying your break 
Matt
Great post, Bob-spot on! Thank you for that!
Matt