Let's make LocalChurchDiscussions Better for 2013!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Actually by definition antagonism does not have to include hostility but nonetheless since that is the definition you are using please provide us some examples of it towards LC system members participating in this forum so we can understand what you are referring to.

Speaking for myself I hold no hostility towards any LC system member and I hold dear religious liberty as a fundamental right in a civil society. LC system members could wear pumpkins on their heads and shout Witness Lee 3 times at the top of their lungs and teach this as a required practice and I would defend their right to do so. But at the very same time others have the right to openly oppose this teaching and practice if they disagree with it.

So again if you have some concrete examples in this forum of antagonism per the definition you are using please point them out to us.

I would say that purposely antagonizing people through passive-aggressive behavior and then yelling "hostility!" when they finally react with anger is the worst kind of hostility. It's like teasing a dog and then shooting him when he finally bites you.

Obviously we all need to do our best to roll with the punches. But as far as I'm concerned the main test of a poster is not how he maintains a patina of civility against the screams of protest of others. The main test is whether a poster posts honestly and in good faith. As messy as anger and frustration are, I understand them. What I don't and probably never will understand is trying to provoke anger in others in order to discredit them or the forum they operate in.