Change 'witnessing' mission of GD?

About This Message Board
1

I’ve noticed there seems to be an awful lot of ‘witnessing’ threads in Great Debates. This makes sense, because, after all, it does state up front that that is the forum for witnessing. But those threads aren’t really debates, are they? I mean, it seems to me that one after another has boiled down to ‘well, that’s what I believe, and if you don’t believe it then you’re wrong.’. You can’t debate a matter of faith.
Since witnessing is, basically, a statement of opinion, and those who want to post their witnessing threads aren’t interested in debating the facts or basis of their religion, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more appropriate to have ‘witnessing’ threads be posted in IMHO.

Just a thought. I expect it’s probably been suggested before.

2

Well, Felice, whether it’s been brought up before is immaterial.

You’ve brought up an excellent point, and I hope one of the mods will pop in here and give us an answer.

Personally, witnessing and debating are so far apart that I wonder thar something hasn’t been done by now.

Just a newbie’s opinion. Don’t get out of shape. It’s not a critisism. Just an observation. I love you guys. Really!

3

As someone who’s posted to some of those threads, I have to say the line isn’t as distinct as you might think.

Poster A says “religion is bad because the Bible says this.”

Poster B replies that “the Bible may say this, but it also says that.” At that point poster A and B (and C-Z) get into a big fight.

Debate or witnessing? Not a lot different from threads on any hot topic from abortion to George W.

I say, it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

4

I’d differ with Felice’s original premise, although I do see some merit to her suggestion that witnessing fits the province of IMHO (it is, at last analysis, expression of an opinion, not a debatable question).

However, I don’t see much witnessing going on in GD, and I’m a very regular habitue of that forum. To be sure, there are a lot of threads dealing with religion and the nature of metaphysics/theology there. But these are not witnessing in the strict sense, but rather debates on which common ground can be arrived at from which to take separate stances. If I may draw a parallel:

Suppose that there are three schools of thought regarding the identity and nature of Cecil Adams. One school, the traditionalists, believes that Cecil is a reclusive genius who communicates with the world through his columns, by passing messages through Ed Zotti, and through his far-too-rare posts here. Another believes that “Cecil Adams” is Ed Zotti’s secret identity as a superhero. And a third believes that there is no such thing as a personal Cecil Adams, that he is actually a symbol who represents the personified culmination of our individual fights against ignorance. Asserting your point of view as a Reclusivist, a Zottist, or a Symbolist would be a witness. But one can constructively argue the evidence for each view, its implications for the greater world around us. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a Cecil Adams.”) And the work of such scholars as the historical Cecilologist whitetho would be brought to bear and cited as authoritative, or disputed by revisionists who believe that Cecil Adams is really Tubadiva.

I trust you see the difference. :slight_smile:

5

Cogent and balanced as usual, Polycarp. That was exactly what I was going to say (:nose grows like Pinocchio’s:)
Actually my phrasing ran more along the lines of moving witnessing to IMHO would be a mean, lowdown, rotten trick on Czarcasm and TVeblen, both of whom are the the salt of the earth and the friendliest folks you’d ever hope to meet.
Well, maybe not Czarcasm.
No, I’ve considered the matter deeply and witnessing definitely belong in GD.

Veb

6

And yet . . . The thread that comes most immediately to my mind is the current Mormon-bashing thread. Elder Bunnyhurt is not interested in debate–he’s witnessing. Or perhaps it’s anti-witnessing. Whichever, it’s %#^& annoying.

I know that David and Gaudere are busy. I guess while I’d love to see “pure” witnessing reserved for IMHO (and MPSIMS, for that matter), it’s difficult at best to determine where debating ends and preaching begins.

How about just eliminating that witnessing clause in the GD forum description? What kind of problems would that cause?

7

And yes, Veb, I know it would be a horrible thing to do to you. I’m sorry, but you’re just collateral damage. I’m really interested in going after Slythechasm. :smiley:

8

“Witnessing” not to mean strictly religion, but offering as a non-agrument that “You just have to take my premise as an article of faith.” No rhetorical constructs or anectdotal support. That’s no debate, and it sure ain’t great.

What if GD had to actually resolve a given issue? Instead of the thread’s OP of “Gee, Bush looks like a idiot again,” followed by “Oh yea, well at least he didn’t have sex in the oval office…” there would have to be more of a point to it all. What if a more formal structure were to be imposed? I know that GD would then have to be more heavily moderated (but compared to what the mods in GQ face, I doubt that would be anything worse). Instead of having the thread fall off the pages a beaten dead horse, the mods would announce that the issue had been exhausted to their satisfaction and that a only a certain number of posts would be allowed. The OP would clearly state a pro or con position, and each following poster would just as clearly state which side they were supporting in “Post Subject” (it would be ok to come back later and post against your own position) What would be required of the techies would be to offer three alternate pro, con and neutral “back” buttons - so that posters and lurkers could vote on which side they favored. After the mod closed the thread the results would be posted. People can’t help"witnessing"(Christ knows I do enough of it myself), so long as they don’t threaten or attack - same as the rules are now. Witnessing just wouldn’t have any use as a persuasive tool in a forum that would require such tools for a demonstrable result.

9

I’ve said it before, that Christians are invited in GD so the lions can have a go. Many atheists and other non Christians have been so traumatized by “Christianity” that they will avail themselves of every opportunity to put it down, and Christians generally feel not only an obligation, but a challenge to respond and in most cases witness. I can’t help notice how many of the moderators continue to participate along with several other senior posters in just about every thread touching on Christianity. A ban on witnessing would dry up the fodder that many SDers feed on.

Also, GD is not faced with an overload problem as in GQ. Not once have I had to go to the second page in GD to catch up on the day before.

10

I know I shouldn’t respond, but I gotta clear one thing up. Grienspace, if GD is so populated with disgruntled ex-Christians (which likely isn’t the case, in all honesty) who want desperately to bring down Christians and their faith . . . well, wouldn’t they prefer to do it in a forum with a few more christians? If all they want to do, f’rinstance, is attack and insult, why not do it on, say, the Christian boards? I think you’re continuing to discount the vast majority of reasonable, balanced, and caring posters–including Christians.

I’m sorry you’re upset about it. Just out of curiosity, what could be reasonably done here to make things more to your liking?

11

Actually,** Andros**, I am not upset at all, but you have way overstated my position.I can see now from my opening line that I am suggesting a frustration on my part, but that is farthest from the truth.Also the lions are not that many, but they do stalk (I can’t resist) in the threads I debate in and many of them are in the heirarchy. Everyone has a right to their opinion and I’ve learned a lot since I’ve hung around here. I’ve changed Andros, not in my core beliefs, but in my understanding and appreciation for those who hold honest views that even ridicule my beliefs. In my earlier postings particularly with regard to my first attempt to start a frivolous debate I reacted quite badly, because I failed to comprehend the general nature of the forum and I had no experience with the kind of criticism that came down on me. Furthermore, I also realise that I need to be very careful in my wording. Thanks to several people including you who have given me good advice I seem to have settled into a comfort zone. I haven’t been to the pit in a long time and have no intention of returning there. The very presence of the anti-Christians, anti-fundamentalists etc. has provided me with the opportunity to debate and witness for my belief in the ultimate salvation for all men/women. I need them. Perhaps one day you, me, and David B. will get together and knock back an ambrosia cocktail. In any event Andros I hope this clears it up once and for all.

12

Fair enuf, grienspace. Thanks.

13

People are misunderstanding the true definition of “witnessing.” When properly done, there’s considerably more to witnessing than just standing up in front of people and saying, “Hi, my name’s Duck Duck Goose and I believe in Jesus.” What is supposed to come next is the question, “–how about you?” It’s supposed to initiate a dialogue between the witnessee and the witnessor. The reason you choose to witness to someone is not because you think they don’t know you believe in Jesus, and you want to set the record straight. The reason you choose to witness to someone is because you think that you might be able to lead them to Jesus, and this is inevitably going involve a certain amount of discussion, i.e. debate.

For this reason, people who want to use the SDMB for witnessing ought to post it in GD. There’s an implicit invitation to debate included in the act of witnessing.

It was my understanding that the line about “this is the place for witnessing, if you feel you must” was added to the GD Main Forums page after the Winter 1999-2000 invasion by folks from the Left Behind Message Board (which if you’re not familiar with it, was a conservative Christian MB). I thought that the mods got so tired of Fundies bursting into all the forums with their thinly veiled witnessing (in GQ, “Is there a God?”, in MPSIMS, “Here’s how I feel about God”, in ATMB, “Is this a Christian message board?”, etc.) that the administration added that line to hopefully direct their attention to the one forum that was set up to handle serious discussions of religion

I don’t think witnessing belongs in IMHO at all. It’s such a nice cheerful friendly place–why spoil it with the inevitable fistfights? You know as well as I do that anything to do with religion can only rarely be kept on a cheerful, “Hi, I love Jesus, do you?” basis. There are always going to be the bad actors and troublemakers who absolutely cannot sit on their hands and not post a “oh, yeah, who gives a fuck?”

Great Debates is set up to be our “terribly serious” forum, and that’s where all religious matters ought to go (outside of the simply technical questions, “How many tassels were there on Moses’ ephod?”)

And I think GD has been vastly improved by the creation of IMHO, “Great Debates Lite”, especially now that people are starting to get the idea that “God vs. Satan” is a Great Debate and “Britney vs. Christina” is not.

14

Witnessing is in GD because David lost the coin flip. :wink:

In all seriousness, I think witnessing belongs in GD because of the factors previously mentioned; it’s a serious topic, witnessing threads often turn into debates, etc. I don’t mind having witnessing in my forum; I have to read the threads (which given that I’ve read the Bible and have been told quite often how Jesus loves me, they’re pretty repetitive), but it’s not like when I walk down the street and get chased around by tract-wielding Jews for Jesus and preached at at 80 decibles through a megaphone.

No, I’m pretty sure it’s been around for as long as I can remember.