- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is just an idea, and I want to gauge your response to it.
As you already know, we have 2 sections for this site.
1) Believers Area
2) Skeptics AreaIMO, I think this has improved the quality of posting because every topic was in danger of becoming a debate about the existence of God and that has stopped now.
However, in the Believers Area, we still have members there that ignore good posts and continue to recycle their doctrines even in the face of good evidence against their stance.
I think many here would wish that members were able to tackle all these points and admit they were good points or that they have weakness in their belief as a result.
So in light of that, do you think it is a good idea to leave the Believers Area as it is, except to move the Scripture & Biblical Doctrine into it's own category. The difference being that a person who posts here must be of good quality in that he can make an argument and answer opposing questions. If a member just ignores good questions and recycles their tired doctrine, then they are out, but free to post in the rest of the Believers Area and Skeptics Area.
For me, Truth and Tradition is suitable for all types of Believers and Skeptics for all members. But Scripture and Doctrine should have posts from those who are well able to look at all the facts or ideas. Not those who are blindly selective. This Forum wouldn't bar anyone who had opposing ideas like the Trinity or Oneness, but only members who ignore stuff rather than being honest and looking at all the facts.
What I am trying to do is up the caliber of posts in the Scripture and Doctrine forum and steer it away from the Truth and Tradition forum if you know what I mean.
So it would look like this.
Scripture & Doctrine (Some believers/teachers)
Believers Area (All believers)
Skeptics Area (All members)After all it is written that not all should be teachers as teaching incurs a greater judgement, both good and bad and Scripture and Doctrine is really a place for teachers. Whereas in Truth and Tradition for example, that is a great place for opinions and ideas, as well as teaching.
Hi t8,
I'm all for it! Especially this part:
Quote The difference being that a person who posts here must be of good quality in that he can make an argument and answer opposing questions. Either answer the DIRECT question asked of you with a DIRECT answer or go back and sit at the kid's table!
And I would personally moderate the crap out of that site, because my biggest pet peave on this whole site is when people run from questions that are potentially damaging to their doctrine.
mike
I'm all for it and if I've ever failed to answer or address an issue I apologize.
However there are times I've gotten into discussions where it reaches a point of casting pearls before the swine and will discontinue once I feel I have presented my case and addressed all the opposing issues at least once (actually this is hard for me to do as I'm told I would “argue with a stump”). There have also been times where I'm positive the person didn't read half my response before answering.
Wm
To All,
“Once freedom of speech is impinged, the voice of truth ceases to be heard.”
At face value it may appear to be a good idea,
but let me show the flaws with this type of thinking
as censorship will certainly impede on Truth! (Click Here)First: Bias will determine which points are valid and which are not!
putting judgment in the hands of man and taking it away from God.Secondly: L o n g Posts with multiple questions will become a burden.
Thirdly: Questions can be asked in such a way that no answer can arise truth.
Fourthly: Loaded questions demanding a “Yes” or “No” will certainly prey on all here.
A viable Solution
Rather than censorship new categories should be developed.
Because we all see that certain Scriptures don't seem to fit
others overall understanding of the Bible. These Scriptures
should be explained by the person's understanding of God.
Everyone should grill until all our satisfaction is achieved.
For a person to revert back to fallacies, they'll look silly.
If a person chooses to ignore these Posts, it will make
their position appear to be fictitious or weak at best.
The category might be called: “The Hot Seat” for
they will be on the grill for all to openly peruse!This may not achieve agreements but it will certainly
slow down what it is that seems to concern you T8!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgThe only thing being censored is the same type thing posted repeatedly. As I understand it to participate in discussions you must answer direct questions. If you cannot answer a question just say so but don't ignore it. I do agree however that the questions should be limited to a few at a time.
My opinion, Wm
To Edj.
If a person says “I do not know” or “my answer is this…(inadequate)”, then at least they have shown where they stand and that is acceptable.
It is those who dodge good questions in order to preserve their ability to continue posting something they either do not understand or have no legs to stand on.I think it is wise that Scripture and Doctrine is for teachers and teachers have a responsibility to look at the facts and decide accordingly.
If I go ahead and create a “Teachers Place” category that includes the Scripture & Doctrine forum, then I might also add in another forum, where members can take each other to task, over questions that have been ignored. If they refuse to respond adequately, that could be grounds for excluding them in that category. And if at a later date they decide to front the question with I do not know, or give a reasonable explanation, then they could be included again.
Hi T8,
Glad to see you're concerned with not squelching Truth!
Censorship is a strong concern of mine, as I was one of
only a few that went to bat for bodhitharta, despite the
outrageously false doctrines he continued to propagate!Your site is indeed my favorite Forum that I Post in T8.
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (seekingtruth @ July 30 2010,06:45) As I understand it to participate in discussions you must answer direct questions. If you cannot answer a question just say so but don't ignore it. I do agree however that the questions should be limited to a few at a time.
Hi Wm,I agree 100%. I hate the long drawn out posts, but I think anyone can post as much or little as they like, as long as they only request you answer one direct question at the end. I'm working on this in a debate with WJ and in one with KJ right now. We're definitely ironing out some bumps, but I think “one post – one question – one answer” is fair.
I only expect the question that I put in bold letters to be answered, even if I've asked 10 rhetorical, or “thinking out loud” questions throughout the post.
But I DEMAND that the one bolded question be answered DIRECTLY! So far, I haven't had much success. But if this is one of the stipulations of posting in this forum, every one will have to follow these rules.
I have been engaging with KJ for months about “firstborn of every creature” really meaning “preeminent over mankind”. He keeps posting the same stuff, but I've been asking one simple question for 2 months, and he refuses to answer it. If he did this on t8's proposed forum, he would be banned from commenting at all on that thread until he came up with a DIRECT answer to my DIRECT question.
I think it's a marvelous idea guys.
mike
Yes agreed. Flooding as it is sometimes called is actually against the rules too. We are not to overwhelm, but to place a light burden at the most.
I hate it when someone overwhelms their opponent as a strategy to win. It does nothing for the truth and only aids in inflating the pride of the one who wants desperately to win and to satisfy his own ego.It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, to accuse unnamed people of not being willing to respond to the points made to them when you have excluded those who debate the existence of your Imaginary Friend without first giving them responses to the very good points they made on that subject.
While the christian club has its in-rules of engagement that involve flinging scripture at one another, the elephant of the god that isn't really there remains firmly in the room!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,12:15) Yes agreed. Flooding as it is sometimes called is actually against the rules too. We are not to overwhelm, but to place a light burden at the most.
I hate it when someone overwhelms their opponent as a strategy to win. It does nothing for the truth and only aids in inflating the pride of the one who wants desperately to win and to satisfy his own ego.
You make a good point. Posters here are more restrained and reasonable on the whole I think, but on other forums you can see huge posts with overwhelming numbers of points, none of which the poster has any intention of defending in any depth.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 30 2010,20:32) It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, to accuse unnamed people of not being willing to respond to the points made to them when you have excluded those who debate the existence of your Imaginary Friend without first giving them responses to the very good points they made on that subject.
Not true. There is a whole category with multiple forums for that.
It is called Skeptics Place.And not all members can respond to all posts. But when people make an argument or bring a teaching, they need to be able to defend it and answer questions related to it. Even if the answer is “I don't know”.
I believe also, that it is a good idea. Some do not answer a direct question, even though it has been asked several times. Will that be eliminated then? I hope so!!!!!Irene
T8,
How so you decide who is blindly selective?
The one who determines that may well have their own biases and so their judgment would be less than objective.
T8,
Is it only the lack of answers to direct questions that you find objectionable?
If this is so then perhaps we should clearly indicate that a question is a direct question so that the person it is dirrected to knows that we would like an answer to it.
Have you also considered there are questions that are not best to answer directly such as a loaded question or one a questioner wants a yes/no answer to a query that is better answered with an essay answer.
What needs to be curbed is the practice of teaching something and ignoring legitimate rebuttals and points, and just continuing to blindly preach the same thing as if such points or rebuttals were never made.
If you are going to teach something, you need to defend it.
I am not condoning that we answer every question that is asked, because we all have differing demands with time, but that we defend our teachings. Defending a teaching includes answering good and legitimate points.
Like I said, answering "I don't know" will suffice.
I think that many here are annoyed when their good points are ignored.
It doesn't do much for the truth when people just ignore good points and scripture.So loaded questions or irrelivant questions can be ignored.
And it is not like we penalize people for one infringement. It is the practice of ignoring good rebuttals, points, and scripture.
People should not be allowed to try and convince people of something by using underhanded tactics.
Dishonesty, dodging, and sly tactics need to go away.
T8.
What you state sounds reasonable.
I attempt to use logical reasoning when posting as I believe it is better for learning. Sadly I am most likely less than perfect in applying the principles which makes it beneficial when others point out my errors though I reserve the power to judge whether I believe they are errors.
I have observed enough that I believe a number of posters are most likely ignorant of the basic practices of logical reasoning though I believe that knowledge should be inborn to all human beings. I therefore attempt to explain my own process of arriving at a specific conclusion at times.
If you see any improvement I may make then please feel free to advise me.
This is true whether or not you choose to make a special area.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
