Incomplete

[KLP]

There was no confusion as I recall when it was just called "CofC Doctrine and Practices". The confusion for me came in when the 'safe-space" touchy-feely stuff came in with the rule that no disagreement (only support) is allowed on the Doctrine forum. How can you have a forum named Doctrine and want discussion but then disallow any form of disagreement? That was a mess. So yes, changing the title at that point to "how it impacted you" perhaps made the it less confusing given the new rules about agreement only. Great, one new problem solved. But at the same time it removed the frickin obvious topic forum of discussing CofC doctrine/practice on a site dedicated to topics of CofCism.

Can't really push CofC doctrine discussions to the Old Paths...which was supposed to be this "safe space" for Atheists and Agnostics. Oh how they complained when people with faith entered that secular space. But maybe if we keep insisting that the forums are not confusing or lacking then it will eventually become the reality.

[agricola]

I don't disagree, really - but coming up with good names that still allow for enough latitude to actually CONVERSE (or DISCUSS or whatever) is really hard!

An attempt was made to ban people who had any sort of religious belief from the 'agnostics and skeptics forum' altogether, and that didn't quite work...I really DON'T think we seriously want to have a bunch of little 'by permission only' private forums here with NOTHING for common discussion. I do think asking that people be nothing but comforting in the Abuse forum is clearly a good thing - but are we supposed to all wall ourselves off in little compartments constantly?

I am not actually so certain that the 'how the coc impacted my life' formerly known as Coc Doctrine needs to be QUITE to non-confrontational -- but at the same time, we don't actively want to drive new folks away by scaring them off or offending them right off the bat, either - and that forum is one everybody gravitates toward early on.

Would moving it 'down' the list help? Generally, the forums near the top are introductory, new folks, welcome, here's my experience, I had horrible things happen...typical new member type interests, while forums further down are either 'stronger meat' or snarky chat among people who 'know' each other pretty well by now...

Thoughts?

[KLP]

I think I prefer to just enjoy complaining about it.

[JKendallDane]

What doesn't help any in adding to the confusion is threads being started in various forums where they really shouldn't be. The "Preached into hell at a coc funeral" topic really belongs in this forum but it's over in the Coffee House where I'm sure no one would expect to find it, much less go looking for it.

Trying to pigeonhole certain discussions can be a problem, but things like that just seem an easy choice.

[teresa]

Can't really push CofC doctrine discussions to the Old Paths.

Well, that is what I am hoping to do, if the discussion is open to differences of opinion. It seems to me that for an ex-CoC, the CoC is an "old path". That doesn't mean the old path is wrong, necessarily, but it is not a new path. I am really trying to get away from the idea of a "Skeptics Lounge" or "Believers Lounge" where others are unwelcome. So "Old Paths Reconsidered" is not just a new name for "Skeptics Lounge", its a new way of relating to one another. To understand the new categories, we need to forget what they used to be and look at the subtitles, which tell us what each forum is about.

The exact same topics can be discussed in "New Paths" or "Old Paths". For example, let's say someone wants to discuss the topic of errancy with those who have reached a similar conclusion regarding the Bible. They can post in "New Paths" and talk to fellow skeptics without interruption by others who disagree or who like to present contrarian ideas to encourage broader thinking. If someone wants to discuss the topic of errancy with folks who both agree and disagree with them, then they can post in "Old Paths Reconsidered". And they should expect all kinds of views to be expressed and not get upset about it.

Let's say someone wants to discuss CoC doctrine, in regards to, say, being saved by grace through faith, rather than baptism. That topic can fit into either "New Paths" or "Old Paths Reconsidered". For those brought up in the hard-line CoC, holding the view that we are saved by grace through faith, rather than baptism, is a new path. At the same time, it is an old path reconsidered. If someone is looking for support and agreement, the place to post is in New Paths. If they are looking for a broader conversation, the place to post is in Old Paths Reconsidered.

For folks who enjoy in depth doctrinal discussions, I invite you to join the Discussion Board. There are no CoC people on the Discussion Board currently. I've been busy, but intend to get back to my posts regarding N T Wright's "Simply Jesus" book.

[KLP]

Interesting, so you are wanting to "mode" sort the discussions based on intent, mood, or feeling rather than merely topic. I can see the benefit of this concept, but it is not typical. Too bad there is not some coding switch to indicate the mode or intent of an OP, then we could just put everything into one forum. Then each could filter for just the modes they wanted, protected from what they do not want to hear or cannot handle at the time.

Personally, I just do this now by thread topic. I use the "mark as read" function a lot, particularly in certain forums. I scan the threads that may be of interest, and then "mark as read" everything else.

Formerly I was able to operate more by forum division. I generally want to avoid posting anything ever in the abuse forum (but I have slipped of late). And same for New Paths...I generally do not want to post or engage for fear of being considered to be not supporting for expressing my actual thoughts. So I generally want to just stay clear of saying anything...I go through periods where I forget the wisdom of this POV. I knew what to expect in Skeptics Lounge (or it's variant names) and acted accordingly. Coffee Shoppe was mainly for shallow/fun/light topics such as movies, music, and pop culture....keep it light and do not get too intense.

Who knows what goes on in various private forums...for all I know there is a Skull and Bones forum on here...IDK and do not want to know.

But all these clearly divided forums did create certain "circles" of people and things divided. I always hated the "this is our forum" kind of thinking. So I applaud your efforts to have members interact as civil, mature adults instead of being self-isolated into "safe space" echo chambers.

[Ivy]

The "Preached into hell at a coc funeral" topic really belongs in this forum but it's over in the Coffee House where I'm sure no one would expect to find it, much less go looking for it.

What!!!??? Well, I was just thinking that if we were all sitting at a coffee shop together that could be a fun topic of discussion.

To me, "Old Paths Reconsidered" sounds more like a discussion board for paganism, pantheism or druidism, that sort of thing. Wasn't sure how to use it.

[Ivy]

"safe space" echo chambers.

This almost made me spew my coffee!!

[B.H.]

I don't feel very safe. I think everyone is out to get me.

[JKendallDane]

The "Preached into hell at a coc funeral" topic really belongs in this forum but it's over in the Coffee House where I'm sure no one would expect to find it, much less go looking for it.

What!!!??? Well, I was just thinking that if we were all sitting at a coffee shop together that could be a fun topic of discussion.

Lots of things from our coc pasts could be considered "fun topics" but at the same time be situations where people need to vent or just get a hurtful experience off their chest. I just feel things that involve coc experiences should be in one of the support categories.

I rarely agree with klp, but he hit it on the head for me:

Coffee Shoppe was mainly for shallow/fun/light topics such as movies, music, and pop culture....keep it light and do not get too intense.