Christian Chat - Worthy Chat Blogs » Blogs, censorship, debate, and critical thinking

The blog has not been used by admins to talk about themselves, and I doubt anyone wants that. It has been used to express ideas, and by reading those ideas, you get a glimpse into what goes on in our heads, or what things we we going on in the heads of others, that we find noteworthy.

Now, unfortunately (or not, depending on your own preferences) usually only a few admins actually use the blog system. I think that it is entirely possible, that not all the admins even know about the blogs, I know not all the chatters do.

Now, for me, the blog has become somewhat of an editorial column. Of course, it has also been a small source of controversy.  Should it be that way? The answer to that, is just one more opinion. I take neutral ground. Creating division and strife, is of course not a great idea. The expression of an opinion, on the other hand, is not what creates controversy. Controversy, is the REACTION to an idea. Of course, many topics are controversial by nature, or existing controversies are well known. I sail into those waters from time to time.

Some people do not like controversy. Some people view debate as though it is some sort of fight. I feel sorry for those people, as they are missing out on some of the great things God has built into us. We have been given the gifts of reason, observation, creativeness, and communication.

Debate is nothing other that comparing ideas. By seeing ideas compared, we learn. When things go the best possible way in a debate, ideas are exchanged, others see the ideas, and can learn and choose from what they see, and grow. Among good debaters themselves, there is no enmity, it is only the ideas that are opposed, not the persons. By trading ideas, all parties have the opportunity to grow.

Sometimes things go wrong. People are not naturally open minded. Sometimes in informal debate, there is no interest in exchanging ideas, or finding truth. The objective is only to win. In this type of debate, each person only listens to the opposing views to find areas to attack, or in some cases, they just want the fight, information is not relevant. That type of debate is a waste of time. No one can win. In a good debate, everyone wins.

I get into my share of debates in the chatroom, some on the worthyboards forums, and to a lesser degree, even hee in my blog. I make some statements of fact, or conclusions I have reached, and there are often some who are offended in some way, or just think I am wrong and want to take me to task. That is O.K. with me, if I don’t need the controversy, I can choose not to post a blog at all, I can close it to comments, or I can choose not to respond to comments, or, just not publish the comments.

Just so you know, there are probably 10 comments submitted for every one published here. You might think that I am censoring or violating your free speech. If so, you are exactly right. That is my job. Any reply that is full of character attacks, I censor. If it has foul language, I censor it. If a response sounds like it is the ravings of a mad (as in crazy) person, I censor it. If the comment is there for the purpose of posting links to other websites, I censor it. If the comment is there to promote heretical teaching under the guise of the exchange of ideas, I censor it.There are other reasons I censor and I reserve the right to invent more.

That being said, I should point out that the largest group of comments which I decide to censor, are submitted for the purpose of promoting porn sites. The next largest group, are the comments from trolls, who just want to tell us how stupid Christians are to believe in pretend gods and things like that. Third largest group are replies to a blog posting, which have nothing what so ever to do with the subject. We have very few attempted comments, that are character attacks or heretical, I am happy to report.

Censorship is a word that is negative in the minds of many. Censoring well reasoned ideas submitted as good information or in a search for truth or as solutions to problems, are not things I would censor. That I would consider negative myself. Not all ideas are of equal value. Everyone has an opinion, and they are welcome to have them. I am not going to dictate how anyone must think. However, I will not be a party to the intentional demeaning of people, racism, crime, endangerment of any innocent person, or morally repugnant practices. This is the kind of censorship I practice, and I consider it to be a good thing.

People seem to think, in the United States anyway, that they have some sort of right to say what they want, when they want, and where they want. I am happy to disappoint such people, by informing them that they have no such right.

Now, there is one type of comment that I generally allow through, but I have to admit I find frustrating. People who comment on a blog, while missing the point, or by drawing conclusions never intended. It frustrates me also, when people argue against facts, as though their opinion of how the world ought to be, is as real as how the world actually is. I am not going to give any example about that, it would only serve to insult those who hold such opinions. If you have a good mind, you will think of plenty of examples, if you don’t, the concept might just elude you anyway.

This is closely associated with people who confuse feelings with knowledge, as though the two are interchangeable. I will give an example of that, just because one popped into my head. Joycelyn Elders was the surgeon general of the United States. In 1994, her son was arrested for selling cocaine. She remarked that she did not feel that it is a crime. It is one thing to say that you do not think it should be a crime. The fact is, it is a crime. Her, she let feelings substitute for facts. If you think with your feelings, you might not feel that something is wrong, when you use knowledge, you know that it is a crime, and feelings do not alter facts.

 We see this in chat frequently. Recently, a chatter asked if it was wrong to have sex before marriage. Another chatter ( not even a believer ) remarked: “You mean other than the numerous referances about it in both the Old and New Testaments?” I thought the remark was brilliant. It may not have been the most compassionate reply possible, but it cut straight to the point from a place of knowledge, as opposed to the muddy thinking that comes from feelings.

O.K., so what is the point of this blog?

Actually, there is none. I had no agenda, a just started with something and decided to just let it flow. What you can take away from this blog

1. Omegaman is opinionated

2. Good debate is rational, and rises above emotionalism. It is not about fighting or winning, but about ideas and a search for knowledge and improvement. Listening is often more helpful than speaking. It need not be combative.

3. Omegaman practices censorship. Good comments get through, junk does not.

4. You can think with your mind or think with your feelings. Both are capable of deceiving you, but you can use you mind to overcome self deceit, if you will just make an effort and be honest.

That is all I have to say for this installment. Whether their is anything worthy of comment, I do not know. I am willing to entertain the notion of taking requests. Want to get into my head? Suggest a blog topic, I just might take you up on it.