New Spirituality Radio Format

[dreamwalker]

Hi there,
I'm new here and just want to inquire about something and gauge possible interest.

Having seen the success of the Contemporary Christian and related formats in serving a niche of the radio market, I have thought about the possibility that there may be a market for a broader "spirituality" music format. It seems to me the aforementioned Christian formats primarily serve evangelical Christians and overall the more culturally "conservative" Christians, and that there may be a market niche for a broader spectrum of potential listeners, such as the "spiritual but not religious" people, mainline Christians, New Age/New Thought people, and some from other religious traditions. By some measures, this could be as much as 35% of the US population.

I think it would be possible to create a broad spirituality music format with material from the popular music of the last several decades, some modern folk and New Age, maybe some world music, and, yes, some contemporary Christian music. I mainly want to hear from people who are interested in this concept and would like to explore further. I have no interest in debates about the merits of Christian vs. non-Christian spirituality or arguments that only Christian spirituality is genuine or liberal vs. conservative theological debates. Sorry, but I'm not going there.

If you have some thoughts about the prospects for success of such a format or how it could be developed, I'd be glad to discuss.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I mainly want to hear from people who are interested in this concept and would like to explore further. I have no interest in debates about the merits of Christian vs. non-Christian spirituality or arguments that only Christian spirituality is genuine or liberal vs. conservative theological debates. Sorry, but I'm not going there.

I will try to stay in the arena you have described. At first reading you may think I AM moving into the debate you want to avoid, so read carefully.

The success of "Christian" radio is closely tied to the Christian concept of evangelism, the idea that believers have a duty to share the message. That is easy to see in the programming and business concepts of the "preach and teach" type stations. It is not so evident in the Christian music stations, but we can assume much of the listener interest comes from listeners who feel they are making a contribution to evangelism by listening.

There indeed is a movement in the nation today that is palpable for people to say and feel that they are spiritual without being religious. Your challenge is going to be: do these people want to listen to "spiritual" programming? Will they co-mingle with others who have spirituality that flows from another river? Will Buddhist gravitate to the music that the New Age/New Thought people who buy the crystals find of interest? Is there programming content other than music that will prove cohesive to the entire audience, or will non-music content prove corrosive?

I pose a possible answer to the quest you are beginning: Will your search and study eventually lead you to a programming content that is... is... already in existence! Does it go by the name of National Public Radio?

The person that I know best who fits into the description of your target audience is a rabid fan of one particular station (not in the city where she lives) that originates a lot of local content but is part of the NPR family.

I don't know how much conversation on this topic you hope to pursue as public content here in Radio-Info, and what you will find works best off-line. Either way, I would like to participate.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Hi there,
I'm new here and just want to inquire about something and gauge possible interest.

Having seen the success of the Contemporary Christian and related formats in serving a niche of the radio market, I have thought about the possibility that there may be a market for a broader "spirituality" music format. It seems to me the aforementioned Christian formats primarily serve evangelical Christians and overall the more culturally "conservative" Christians, and that there may be a market niche for a broader spectrum of potential listeners, such as the "spiritual but not religious" people, mainline Christians, New Age/New Thought people, and some from other religious traditions. By some measures, this could be as much as 35% of the US population.

I think it would be possible to create a broad spirituality music format with material from the popular music of the last several decades, some modern folk and New Age, maybe some world music, and, yes, some contemporary Christian music. I mainly want to hear from people who are interested in this concept and would like to explore further. I have no interest in debates about the merits of Christian vs. non-Christian spirituality or arguments that only Christian spirituality is genuine or liberal vs. conservative theological debates. Sorry, but I'm not going there.

If you have some thoughts about the prospects for success of such a format or how it could be developed, I'd be glad to discuss.

There should be a niche market for "New Age" music, but to succeed it would have to be promoted as simply a specific genre of music, with no attempt to tie it to anything spiritual. If you're familiar with the CD collections that were popular (saleswise, at least, though not in radio airplay) a while back called "Pure Moods", I suspect that genre of music could be successful as a day-part special, though not 24/7.

 

[quadraphonic]

I agree with Talk_Dude, it would have to be more of a music format than a spirituality format.
Unless there are some heavy hitting advertisers in the spirituality industry that I've missed.
It's hard enough for the statewide spirituality magazine in our area to get advertisers, and they only publish quarterly.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I suspect we are all trying to picture this "unfamiliar animal" by trying to imagine it being tried only in worlds... make that markets... that we understand.

Some one wanting to try would need to very carefully pick a market that looks ripe for whatever this thing would eventually evolve into... assuming it indeed would survive. I think of markets like Madison, WI; Decatur, GA, Austin, TX, etc. University towns. Austin is already such a robust music market that I think such a broadcasting venture would be lost in the noise level there... at least as an experimental test of the concept.

Some of us participating in this conversation have enough engrained Christianity thinking in our systems that we may not have an eye for the marketplace, the concept or content. We have this invisible tether that keeps us from freely roaming around the concept.

For the sake of discussion, I'm not ready to concede that music has to be the primary focus... at least not for planning purposes. If you put it on the air it will sound to the casual listener like it is one more music station, but the intended target listeners will recognize in a heartbeat that music is not the primary focus.

Those of us who are long time students of religious broadcasting focused around Christian content quickly figure out if a station is directed by Baptists or Pentecostals or Catholics or Christianty's own form of New Age thinking. Why wouldn't the target audience for what dreamwalker wants to do also be a very perceptive audience?

 

[quadraphonic]

Those of us who are long time students of religious broadcasting focused around Christian content quickly figure out if a station is directed by Baptists or Pentecostals or Catholics or Christianty's own form of New Age thinking. Why wouldn't the target audience for what dreamwalker wants to do also be a very perceptive audience?

Nobody said they wouldn't be very perceptive. Especially the long time students of spirituality, althought it would be a finite audience indeed.
So their perceptiveness isn't really the issue.
How many of them are there? How many [business]people want to reach that group of people? That's got to determine "success" for the format.

The format's going to require a higher learning/teaching curve, too. The long time students of spirituality don't have any reference point for using their perception in determining the course of the format's form of thinking, and neither do the programmers. Hopefully if someone tries this format, the audience will be more receptive and flexible than they are perceptive. It would go against the niche-formatting of the last 30 years.

 

[radiocph]

Didn't "Smooth Jazz" stations, in the early days, play a lot of "New Age" music? Of course, most of them just played music, and never presented any teaching material, "New Age/Spiritualist" or otherwise.

On the other hand, in the mid-90s, there were a few stations that played motivational/self help tapes all day long. (I think most of those tapes were more business/management oriented than spiritual, although the same company produced both kinds of material). That format didn't last particularly long, either.

It's like any other format...if the audience is there, and the marketing is effective, "spirituality radio" might gain enough of an audience to be practical.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

On the other hand, in the mid-90s, there were a few stations that played motivational/self help tapes all day long. (I think most of those tapes were more business/management oriented than spiritual, although the same company produced both kinds of material). That format didn't last particularly long, either.

I get interested in some new topic from time to time. I used to spend my lunch hours at the downtown main library in Indianapolis. Today we can sit home with the Internet and do the same thing. I found that it doesn't take long to exhaust the available supply of information on many topics.

Efforts to create new radio formats run into that same roadblock. The first day can be spectacular. The first week can be filled with variety. By week six you may be down to repeating program material over and over and over and over. Doesn't matter whether we are talking about a music format, an activity format (sports, fishing, home remodeling, gardening), or a talk format.

That will be a bigger hurdle for a Spirituality Radio Format that may be a bigger challenge than finding willing and able sponsors. What in the world do you fill the time with on the 53rd day of your new format?

 

[dreamwalker]

Certainly some good questions have been posted, which perhaps will provoke some ideas on how this sort of thing could work.

In response to some comments to clarify, I was definitely thinking of a music format, although I’ve had some ideas about non-music programming. I don’t envision this as a primarily “New Age” music format—but I think there are selections from that genre that could work well in this concept. And I also don’t draw a direct line between what’s been called “New Age” music and New Age spirituality, although the latter is a segment of a larger audience that I would think this format would serve. Similarly, I don’t think the greater part of the “spiritual but not religious” population are the “crystals and auras” folks, and may even be more closely akin to (and probably include) mainline Christians who may be attracted to such a format. Maybe it would be promoted as “New Spirituality” or “Alternative Spirituality” radio.

I don’t think NPR provides the kind of programming I’m thinking of, and I have listened to a lot of NPR and NPR-affiliate programming. This would not be “Hearts of Space” (which BTW I don’t think is NPR, but maybe PRI or a similar source). As I mentioned, I think a lot of material could be pulled from a few decades of popular music—some classic rock titles come to mind—just a few really obvious ones—“Let It Be”, “Imagine”, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”—and then last of those makes me think of the more recent Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel”—and going with that theme (just thinking at random here)—Jean Siberry’s “Calling All Angels” with k.d. lang, and even Train’s “Calling All Angels” (different song). Again, just a few random songs that come to mind—there are many more. Of more recent than those, I can’t recall titles or artists at the moment, but wouldn’t want to limit it to decades past. I think there is some Contemporary Christian genre material that could be pulled in—e.g. Michelle Tumes “Healing Waters”, etc. (I don’t know a broad repertoire in that genre).

Those types of metro areas mentioned—Madison, Decatur, Austin—yes, I think those would be the right kind of prospective geographic markets, but I agree about Austin, where it may be hard to be heard above the din, as mentioned. It also may be that broadcast radio isn’t the only or primary medium for this.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

NPR has banned "religious" teaching and stations who apply for CPB funds are pulled if they carry ANY religious programming. Having said that our local TV WFYI had/has a preacher on Sunday mornings.

I watched and listened as he was motivational. He wasn't promoting Christ but some inner child new age religion. I wonder of they keep their CPB funding? He was certainly not supportive of a Christian faith but an ism nonetheless.

I am disingenuous if I seem to claim any affection for a false religion. The reason I requested a Contemporary Christian board and asked for "religion" to be sliced into another realm is this. The wages of sin is death. A false religion is inherently hell bound. If we have anyone other than the original poster who would use this board for a false religion... it is patently offensive to anyone with a Christian base.

If moderators wish to encourage debate on Christian or Contemporary Christian matters this could easily include Christian, Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Methodist, Friends, Non Denominational, etc.

Including "spiritualists", Buddhists, Pantheists, etc. WILL result in debate. It WILL result in an apparent infection on the board as the defined Religion has been and continues to be Christian. I know of no New Age station. The poster brings forward a claimed new format. This is not Religious as 99.9 percent of this website accepts Religion.

Because being religious is a slur against an evangelical Christian we have Religious/Contemporary Christian. The two are somewhat synonymous if you acknowledge the slur.

Society has splintered. Political correctness has come forth. Recent examples are : African American. I "could" use other words/African American that would incite riots. Another word is gay. The diet supplement AIDS. Society has decided that terms we used to use are no longer acceptable because of offense. Some major Churches no longer use Holy Ghost, using Holy Spirit as this departs from societal slurs on ghost. Then what is "Spiritualism" in the context. A church in Indiana changed it's name from Rainbow Acres Church Of God because of the steady influx of gay/lesbian attendees. (I would see it as an outreach.)

If we use this logic we could have Kentucky/Indiana. Or California/New Jersey. My vote is not to ban Spiritualists or cause them harm. Their use of a Christian Board is simply offensive.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

NPR has banned "religious" teaching and stations who apply for CPB funds are pulled if they carry ANY religious programming. Having said that our local TV WFYI had/has a preacher on Sunday mornings.

Maybe some of our friends who work in Public Broadcasting have an insight on how this programming policy works. I am going to guess that the wording of the policy is different than: "funds are pulled if they carry ANY religious programming." Do NPR and PBS have matching policies or do they each treat religious programs differently?

PBS airs some very provocative programs which I assume are considered part of the "documentary" genre in which a combination of historians and theological scholars discuss the meaning of archeological discoveries, the effect of various discoveries of writings as in The Dead Sea Scrolls, and the history of how "the church" (overall) has been affected by historical shifts and turns within "the Christian community". So I suggest that we have little or no clue as to how Public Broadcasting defines RELIGIOUS PROGRAMMING that is acceptable and RELIGIOUS PROGRAMMING that is unwelcome, yea... even FORBIDDEN.

If we use this logic we could have Kentucky/Indiana. Or California/New Jersey. My vote is not to ban Spiritualists or cause them harm. Their use of a Christian Board is simply offensive.

I have lived in nine different states and have been an "aggressive" observer of things-religious where ever I go. I know Baptists who would find the use of a Christian Board by Pentecostals to be offensive. Some groups of the Methodist/Holiness persuasion find use of a Christian Board by Calvinists to be offensive.

I would not want to be the R-I editor on duty every day trying to sort out the postings on a Christian Board and declaring some to be wholesome and healthy and declaring others to be heresy and trash.

And from experience I can tell you that life can be hell if you are charged with the task of deciding who gets time on a Christian radio station and who doesn't when you use criteria other than: Will their check clear the bank?

 

[ChiefEngineer]

When the "ban Jesus" from the airwaves started Staff at the FCC equated "religious" broadcasting with educational programming. Due to the tens of thousands of letters then and still when someone finds the old petition this has not changed.

Whatever "Religious" programming I broadcast is safely equated with educational programming by Staff. This has not changed.

As it concerns Christian Broadcasting as it relates specifically this board : Placing Non Christian notes here simply does not apply. (Take it outside). There is no place for it here. It is argumentative, creates controversy. This is akin to serving bacon at a Mosque. It oversteps the bounds of a reasonable person.

Heresy is a result of mix. Typical Christians may see something as an aberration or heightened sensitivity that is a result of interpretive argument. This most times does not cross the line of salvation. A heresy or false teaching will not always breach salvation as long as it is Christ centered. (Types of Baptism) This is the line which is crossed when an issue clearly beyond the scope of interpretation and beyond salvation is reached. (New Age is beyond any reasonable person's scope of salvation.)

Asking moderators to be involved in disputes only arises when there is name calling or when a topic is beyond the scope of a particular board. By definition the eternal location of a soul will be questioned if New Age posters and Christian posters Mix. Incompatible.

When the former operators of the board determined they had no interest in Christianity they wanted only a Religious Board. This was offensive then. It was related that they had no interest in allowing the many diverse elements to be represented. Then the Contemporary Christian aspect was added for clarification.

Contemporary Christian is decisively clear and does not mix with New Age. By adding Contemporary Christian and allowing New Age, muslim, etc. we have patently incompatible groups in an absurd connection. A new board listing of "Christian" which is a format, Religious, which is a format, and any other "format" would seem proper when looking at formats, if this is what the boards are based on. New Age is an argument and not a format. (We have an argument board, Take It Outside.)

The proponent wants a music format. With music alone it would seem a specific format is already in place that covers that music. There is no New Age genre anywhere although some artists ascribe to a New Age philosophy.

I sometimes post on such topics and see this matter foundational to our faith. Scripture calls to one church with Christ at the head and New Age is not a part of the family or body, or in this case the format. The boards are arranged by format and a New Age format would alienate Christians. Again, the format does not exist. C.S. lewis.com has some excellent arguments on foundational issues.

PC being what it is I acknowledge our oldies format with Christian messages intertwined. I wouldn't come here to ask about music, I get it on the Oldies board. I might ask about the messaging, and have.

Unfortunately Franklin Graham doesn't post here. Nor any authorities known far and wide. There may be few decision makers interested in the view of us radio geeks. Short of them posting, here am I.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Contemporary Christian is decisively clear and does not mix with New Age. By adding Contemporary Christian and allowing New Age, muslim, etc. we have patently incompatible groups in an absurd connection. A new board listing of "Christian" which is a format, Religious, which is a format, and any other "format" would seem proper when looking at formats, if this is what the boards are based on. New Age is an argument and not a format. (We have an argument board, Take It Outside.)

Wow. DOUBLE WOW!

"Contemporary Christian is decisively clear and does not mix with New Age."

If we are going to have a contest and struggle to vote each other off the island... this could get messy. You do understand that there are multitudes of churches in this country still tightly bound to very "traditional" Christian music.... whatever that is.... and these churches look at CCM as some kind of "New Age Christianity"?

So maybe rather than coming in with a flame-thrower on some kind of mission to separate the 'wheat from the tares".... maybe we could engage in some meaningful conversation about terminology.

And maybe we could engage in some meaningful conversation about how radio can program in such a way that people who worry they are on the outside, have fears they are on the outside, KNOW they are on the outside of the circle that we church-people some times draw in the sand around us..... would be comfortable listening to our broadcasts and gaining an understanding of who is on the inside, who is on the outside, and where do they want to be at the end of the day.

[By the way... I carefully decided to use the term "church-people" ]

 

[quadraphonic]

I don't know that we should equate a board at radio-info.com as "a church." Or even assume it's populated with believers.
We were discussing things all nice-like. Why assume discussion of other mindsets "creates controversy?"
Christianity is about transformation. If that's the goal here (not sure it ever has been), we won't transform much if we stay in our own self-delineated ghettoes.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

My personal comments about Christianity are seen as "not nice." I am repeating what I have been taught. Nice or not nice, a path apart from God leads one place. No0 Christian broadcaster wants to embrace Spiritualism---which is not Christianity. New Age is not Christianity.

It may be that some don't grasp that Christianity and New Age or Spiritualism are different. If so, please do some careful study. I am only being Mr. Obvious. Mr. Obvious wanted to simply state the difference between apples and oranges. Some don't see the difference. You really need to read more.

My message didn't get through. This is no place for Spiritualism. There seems to be no defined FORMAT under Radio-Info that lists Spiritualism. This is Christian and Spiritualism isn't Christian. Just as many other religions are not Christian, or even close. I am more offended that this is seen as not nice because it is obvious.

Simply stated, this isn't the place. Maybe the Talk, Oldies, 80's, 70's, Jazz, or other formats would have the same thought if someone attempted to inject a non relevant topic on the board for their defined format.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This forum seems to have operated for some time without too much bickering over its scope, and I assume we will all calm down in a day or two and get on with life.

Actually this forum seems to have a title with a "/" which could have a "-" or the word "and" in there.

The title seems to indicate that it is the forum for things "RELIGIOUS" which is a radio format.
The title seems tl indicate that it is ALSO the forum for things "CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN" which is radio music format.

I met with a Christian Demographer a few years ago, a man who is paid by a church group to study the statistics generated from annual congregational reports, and paid to go interview people of all types to tell us what we need to know.

He was kind enough to share a HUGE-A-GANTIC data base with me. When we met in person, he smiled, and asked if I had learned anything. Was I able to tell him what makes "church" fail, and what makes "church" thrive and flourish. After some shop talk about my inability to look at a congregations numbers and tell you what was in their future, he summed up the liberal vs conservative squabbling as follows: "Here is a picture of the thriving church congregation. You and the pastor come walking down the front steps on your way to find lunch. You come across Joe The Plumber reading the sign out front and you approach him. Upon inquiry Joe blurts out: Here is what I think about faith. And the pastor says: We may not fully agree with that, but come on in sometime and let's talk about it." The implication was: We don't "grow church" by shouting AT people, church (and faith) works when we simply converse with other people and share what we know, what we think, and admit what we don't know.

We assume the primary readers of this particular forum at Radio-Info will be people of faith who are focused on CHRISTIAN radio in some form. When I 'tweaked your nose" in the previous post, I was in hopes that you might recognize that people you would call "non believers" might read here, and depending on what you say, depending on what I say, they will browse on to other topics either attracted to the contents of our Bible, or they will be complete disgusted by our behavior.

I know which outcome I want to see happen. Your mileage may vary.

If your radio stations are as hard-nosed in their expression of Christianity as your expression on who may use this forum, you may be wasting a lot of power bill dollars.

 

[quadraphonic]

My personal comments about Christianity are seen as "not nice."

Who said that?
I think the issue is more the way you're saying it, and the presumptions you're making about the people who've posted.

If you're saying the "not nice" thing about me saying "we were discussing things nice-like" that was a description of how we were discussing things, in response to your assertion that discussing a Spiritual format (not even defined) on a Christian radio board will automatically foment controversy. It doesn't have to. It wasn't for almost a page.

I am repeating what I have been taught. Nice or not nice, a path apart from God leads one place. No0 Christian broadcaster wants to embrace Spiritualism---which is not Christianity. New Age is not Christianity.

And the forum isn't a church. Unless you only discuss Religious/Contemporary Christian music in your church?
Nobody said you had to embrace Spiritualism, or New Age. But it wouldn't harm anyone to answer a question "nicely."

It may be that some don't grasp that Christianity and New Age or Spiritualism are different. If so, please do some careful study. I am only being Mr. Obvious. Mr. Obvious wanted to simply state the difference between apples and oranges. Some don't see the difference. You really need to read more.

Don't make it personal. Especially if you're going to proclaim yourself better.
Maybe some "need to read more." And maybe some are "just repeating what they have been taught." I doubt any of us are completely in either camp there.

My message didn't get through.

Is that because of what people don't grasp, necessarily? Or could there be other causes?

This is no place for Spiritualism. There seems to be no defined FORMAT under Radio-Info that lists Spiritualism. This is Christian and Spiritualism isn't Christian. Just as many other religions are not Christian, or even close. I am more offended that this is seen as not nice because it is obvious.

I don't see where anyone's said "not nice" but just because something's "obvious" doesn't mean you need to try to be "not nice" about discussing it.
You're asserting that people discussing a radio format idea on a particular forum are automatically engaging in heresy and countermanding the Great Commission. I think the motivations and practices of the posters in the thread should be more an issue than the title of the forum or the threads.

Simply stated, this isn't the place. Maybe the Talk, Oldies, 80's, 70's, Jazz, or other formats would have the same thought if someone attempted to inject a non relevant topic on the board for their defined format.

Maybe this, maybe that.
I think it's up the moderators and the owners what goes in here. You said "Take It Outside" is a place to discuss it before, but even then, only moderators and owners can send posts there.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

I thought I posted this before. The discussion has a particular base and this is for formats. Oldies, 80's. etc and Spiritualism don't mix. There is no format for this topic.

This is for radio formats and the whole thread is about a format that doesn't exist. Being "nice like" is only applicable if you agree with what is posted? I note I haven't spit while I am typing, haven't bolded my script, haven't quoted and torn apart posts of others.

Today there are many voices. By disagreeing and providing a rational basis or belief for statements it can infuriate those who will never agree.

My opinion that this is no place for a discussion on Spiritualism, another religion and another "format" that isn't existing, is not yelling or hard nosed. (Unlike some of the posts before) I am providing both my opinion and the reasons. Eyes to see , Ears to hear.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I would prefer that we err in the other direction. Spirituality in our language implies something kin to or close to religion or part of religion in general and if we are to understand the fullness of Christianity, and if we are to share our understanding of what is Christian religious programming and thinking we need to be willing and able to interface with people who have other views.

There is some Christian Religious programming that calls on the listeners to isolate themselves, to be separated peoples. There is other Christian Religious programming that calls on the listeners to go out and mingle with the world and have a time of sharing. Which group has any authority to declare the other group invalid.

I don't know that any one of us has the authority to dictate how everyone else posting here and reading here MUST honor the concepts of Person #1.

I thought we were called to be a hospitable people.

 

[quadraphonic]

I thought I posted this before. The discussion has a particular base and this is for formats. Oldies, 80's. etc and Spiritualism don't mix. There is no format for this topic.

This is for radio formats and the whole thread is about a format that doesn't exist.

That's great. You said that. Again. So why expand beyond your points and get all personal and make stuff up to make your point?

Like you do here:

Being "nice like" is only applicable if you agree with what is posted?

Who said that? You're arguing your own straw man there. Again.
Disagree all you want. The discussion was "nice like" before you chastised us for discussing anything but what you think should be discussed.

I note I haven't spit while I am typing, haven't bolded my script,

Those are generic forms of punctuation for communication. None of them on their own mean what you seem to see in the posts.
Just because people do not agree with your characterizations, it doesn't mean they are drooling, enraged, seething, or even excited.
You(r opinion) might not be worth getting that excited about. Just sayin. Mine probably isn't either, since this is just a radio forum, not a church, and I'm cool with that.

haven't quoted and torn apart posts of others.

People quote so you can tell what they are referring to.
Again, that's just part of communication.
As for "torn apart" I'm asking you for clarification and pointing out where you're mischaracterizing the mess out of everyone else posting here.
Where did someone say that our opinions are "nice like" and your opinions are the antithesis of that?
They didn't. I said "nice like" discussing the tone of the conversation. Nothing about the content of the opinions, even yours, was even implied.

Today there are many voices. By disagreeing and providing a rational basis or belief for statements it can infuriate those who will never agree.

You haven't provided anything "rational." It's been all legalist interpretation of the forum rules.
And "what you were told about what you believe."
And then you said some other people needed to read more.
Again, I don't think anyone here is "infuriated." A 'tall.

My opinion that this is no place for a discussion on Spiritualism, another religion and another "format" that isn't existing, is not yelling or hard nosed. (Unlike some of the posts before)

Where are these "yelling or hard nosed" posts? I do not see them.

I am providing both my opinion and the reasons. Eyes to see , Ears to hear.

Was that a parable? I missed it.
That sentence is great, but you're blowing smoke about what everyone else has said so far, and mischaracterizing the mess out of it. Attaching a Bible paraphrase to it doesn't make that activity holy at all.
When you mischaracterized other people's postings, that's where the "controversy" came in too. Notice that. And don't discount the Greatest Commandment. You can love the Lord your God with all your heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, but if you're not loving your neighbor as yourself, and aren't willing enough to talk with them when they are not trying to convert you, just to discuss a radio idea, then that's got to cloud who will hear what you say, regardless of what kind of ears they have.

Not all of us are called to live in a ghetto of our own creation.