What is the point of a forum if you cannot speak?

[RLT63]

It’s all in the way you express it, apparently. @Peterlag wrote a post this evening which asserts that Jesus became God in the 4th century. A moderator reviewed the post, at my request, and stated that it does not violate the new policy.

I suppose the decision could be reconsidered and reversed, but it may be an indication that the new policy is more flexible than it initially appeared to be.

I wonder which translation he used to come up with that?

 

[Matthias]

To be fair when I joined the forum I read a statement that the matter of the Trinity was a closed issue. However most of the discussions concerned the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Can you blame the administrators for taking action to enforce the rules? I understand there is still a section where discussions like that can take place

I think it’s a shame that trinitarians aren’t free to discuss their belief about God on a board which formerly stated that it supports that view.

We all lose with the new policy.

 

[Matthias]

I wonder which translation he used to come up with that?

It isn’t a translation. It’s history.

 

[RLT63]

Not sure why this is a ‘however.’ If one does not want to discuss such topics, it is not required.

For instance, I do not believe in the infallibility of the popes. However, if others want to discuss this, thread after thread, that’s what forums are generally for.

If the forum rules said the infallibility of the Pope was a closed issue discussion about it would fall under however

 

[RLT63]

It isn’t a translation. It’s history.

So he means when the Nicene Creed was established. How sneaky

 

[Matthias]

So he means when the Nicene Creed was established. How sneaky

Sneaky brilliant.

 

[Matthias]

To be fair when I joined the forum I read a statement that the matter of the Trinity was a closed issue. However most of the discussions concerned the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Can you blame the administrators for taking action to enforce the rules? I understand there is still a section where discussions like that can take place

There is still a section where discussions like that can take place, but there’s a catch: Christians are prohibited from starting threads there.

What trinitarian would voluntarily surrender the title “Christian”? Would the moderators go for it if someone did?

What antitrinitarian would voluntarily surrender the title “Christian”? Not me. I’m firmly rooted in primitive (ante-Nicene) Christianity.

In order for the subject to be discussed in that section only an antitrinitarian who doesn’t identify as “Christian“ can start a thread about that subject (or any subject) there. Christians are permitted to respond, not to initiate, there.

 

[Rita]

Isn’t that a reason for individual response to rule enforcement of etiquette rather than doctrinal censorship?

Don’t you think we tried that …….

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I think it’s a shame that trinitarians aren’t free to discuss their belief about God on a board which formerly stated that it supports that view.

We all lose with the new policy.

What is the new policy?

 

[Matthias]

What is the new policy?

Thread 'Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB'
Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thread 'Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB'
Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB

Interesting. Thank you for the link. It’s an unexpected decision and I understand why it’s rocking the boat. But given how numerous they got I do very see the logic and actually agree with it.

 

[Rita]

I think it’s a shame that trinitarians aren’t free to discuss their belief about God on a board which formerly stated that it supports that view.

We all lose with the new policy.

That’s simple, the Trinitarians were acting in the same way as the non trinitarians - how things are discussed is an issue that members need to work on. …..
How many times do we have to state that it wasn’t the subject but how ‘ everyone ‘ was choosing to debate it !!!!!!

 

[RLT63]

There is still a section where discussions like that can take place, but there’s a catch: Christians are prohibited from starting threads there.

What trinitarian would voluntarily surrender the title “Christian”? Would the moderators go for it if someone did?

What antitrinitarian would voluntarily surrender the title “Christian”? Not me. I’m firmly rooted in primitive (ante-Nicene) Christianity.

In order for the subject to be discussed in that section only an antitrinitarian who doesn’t identify as “Christian“ can start a thread about that subject (or any subject) there. Christians are permitted to respond, not to initiate, there.

Then the unorthodox forum should have been left for you guys

 

[dev553344]

All of us that post here speak some truth, some falsehood. But we bear testimony of our Gods. It is ashamed that someone who determines what Biblical truth is prevents others from stating their opinion, who is in favor of that?

There's a lot of things you can't say on Christian forums. The real question is, what is it that you are trying to promote by breaking the rules?

 

[Aunty Jane]

That’s simple, the Trinitarians were acting in the same way as the non trinitarians - how things are discussed is an issue that members need to work on. …..
How many times do we have to state that it wasn’t the subject but how ‘ everyone ‘ was choosing to debate it !!!!!!

Rita, what is the point of an "unorthodox" forum if its content is censored? You said its not the topic but the ones who can't be civil in their discussion.....so, allow free topics just in this one forum...and remove offenders, not content.....its not too much to ask, surely...?
Permanently ban those who can't be civil from that forum so that they cannot post there. We will all be mindful of what we say if there are consequences.
You will lose posters if you take such a hard line on this....and the site depends on its advertisers who will not support the site if the numbers go down.

A site needs a bit of controversy to stay relevant in today's world....we didn't have to worry about advertisers before, but now pretty much all sites depend on them to survive. Censoring what topics can be discussed is what will drive people away. We have already lost some regular posters.
Having a forum where those who want to avoid the sensitive topics, can do so, allows free speech.....please don't become like all the boring others....do you just want an echo chamber? Or can we discuss these things like adults? Censor the ones who make personal slurs and who name call, but please don't stifle open discussion. Punish the offenders if you must, and make the rules of civility mean something. We don't need to call people names to get our point across. We need to defend what we believe the way Jesus did.....with God's word.

Debates are about stating your case and allowing others to make their own judgments....Bible bashing with name calling never accomplishes anything, but presenting the Bible's truth is why we are all here......there are many more who read than who post, so for their benefit let the hot topics remain and any comment that violates the rules of civility and respect.

Pleading here.....this is the best Bible discussion site on the net.....don't let the hot-heads ruin it.

 

[Rita]

Your thoughts are noted

 

[Enoch111]

It is ashamed that someone who determines what Biblical truth is prevents others from stating their opinion, who is in favor of that?

The issue is not free speech but attacks on fundamental Bible doctrines.

 

[Dropship]

Forums are fun because we can easily use the scriptures to win any debate..

 

[Matthias]

That’s simple, the Trinitarians were acting in the same way as the non trinitarians - how things are discussed is an issue that members need to work on. …..
How many times do we have to state that it wasn’t the subject but how ‘ everyone ‘ was choosing to debate it !!!!!!

Shutting down discussion of a topic, any topic, is shutting down discussion of a topic. It doesn’t address the real problem - the inability of people to control themselves.

The same thing happened in church history. The conduct at early church councils is utterly appalling. Violence, in word and in deed, wasn’t uncommon. ”Christianity” -> barbaric. That shouldn’t be, but it’s historical fact that it was; a black eye for Christianity.

Unlike Christianity Board, church councils didn’t silence themselves; the “winning” side didn’t decree that the “winning” side will no longer be allowed to discuss the topic.

The “winning” side didn’t cease discussing the topic. The “losing” side didn’t cease discussing the topic. The “losers” became “winners” and the “winners” became “losers” as the political winds - both inside and outside of the church - shifted back and forth. It’s an ugly history. No wonder that it‘s seldom taught in churches.

I’m on a personal journey reading / re-reading the early church fathers. Were they alive today and desired to become members on Christianity Board, they would be banned - both for their content and for their inability to control themselves.

Christianity Board isn’t confronted with a “new” problem; Christianity Board is confronted with an “old” problem - people. Christian people. Christian people behaving, at times, like savages.

Silencing discussion on a topic, any topic, doesn’t change people’s hearts; it hardens people’s hearts. It deprives us of an opportunity to change. We all lose when that happens.

Christianity. Not a very pretty picture.

Christians. A work in progress; some more mature than others.

 

[Matthias]

Your thoughts are noted

I appreciate that, and I hope others will too. I wish the thoughts of all members of Christianity Board had been requested and those which were shared noted before a new policy was decided on and put in place. That’s all bridge under the water now.

It may remain that way, but it doesn’t have to.

If the owner, administrators, moderators and staff are satisfied with the new policy, then keep it. Members will decide how to deal with it. Some have stayed. Some have left. More will come. More will go. That’s the nature of online discussion forums.

If you’re collectively not satisfied with the results of the new policy, then change it. This time, ideally, after receiving input from the rank and file members of Christianity Board.

Thank you and all for your service to the Christianity Board community.