A pathetic move by a Christian forum...

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by shakran

Why in the hell should we pay for the traffic for domestic jarheads to come in and insult the cars the board is centered on? It's a Honda board. Not a "Honda Plus Whatever Any Asshole Off The Street Feels Like Talking About" board.

It looks like I'm rather biased 'cause, if I were a member of said forum, I would welcome people to come in and debate the merits of various cars. I was also assuming the board would make more money with increased traffic but that's just me.

If the debates were nothing more than trolls exchanging pejoratives then I'd agree with changing policy (although I'd still keep it if it were making money). I'd similarly agree if the existing members were not interested in debate. In face, I think I described such actions as being "prudent."

That doesn't mean that the feelings of the board members aren't sad. They used to gladly engage in debate. It used to be the only part of the board that non-Christians were allowed on. There was no trolling and threads remained civil despite being heated. What happened to their old attitude?

Same with these guys. they're running a Christianity board. If you want to push the atheistic belief, go find an atheist board.

If you want to have an atheist/Christian showdown, then find a board that caters to it or start your own.

Push atheism on an atheist board?

There used to be a good board that catered to it but something happened to them and I'm not sure exactly what that is so I thought I'd share it with my friends here at the TFP...
-----Added 2/10/2008 at 07 : 01 : 49-----

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

knife, you appear to be arguing that any particular board should have a dissenters' subforum. Please correct me if I'm not understanding you.

Why should they? Just because you think they should?

Yes!

No, of course not. I think it's helpful for any advocacy site to have a dissenters' sub-forum, as you call it, to allow critical examination of their core beliefs. Otherwise, it's much easier to fool yourself and fall into self delusion and that's just sad and pathetic.

The TFP doesn't need such a things 'cause it doesn't promote on any one point of view.

I think it would benefit Christian forums spiritually to keep their debate forums contentious. There were many people in that forum and I'm sure they were there for a reason. It had been there for years and now they're enacting a strange turn of policy. This is sad, weird and interesting. What's up with that? What has changed in these people...

I've learned a lot from that forum and I hope others did as well (in fact, people have testified that they have). I don't think it'll be nearly as good a learning experience with this new policy and I think that's sad...

[roachboy]

there are a couple underlying questions here, i think. one is whether a forum is a public sphere or a private space. if you're part of a community that frequents a board, i think it's pretty easy to see it as a public sphere...if you own a board or think in terms of ownership, it is a private space that appears to be public. at issue there is obviously whether a board can basically change direction at the behest of the owner or not. if you participate in a community and see it as a community, the space which it occupies is de facto collective--the rules of the game amount to a kind of social contract. and i think that is a compelling way to see these spaces--the owner puts the space into motion, but what it is comes from the community. but from that viewpoint, a decision by the owner of the board to change the rules seems autocratic, a violation of the rules of the social game--and it is. at the same time, if you see the board as the platform--and so as something owned by an individual, the prerogatives that follow from that override the rules of the collective game.

in the notice "numerous requests" were invoked to cover over, to some extent, the fact of a direction shift being imposed by the owner.

i dont know what the relation was that you had developed with that community, km, but assuming it was functional for you and for at least some of the members of it, and given that without a community a board is just a board, a website that just floats in the aether, it seems to me that there should be a mutuality, that the owner is constrained by the community, that he or she cannot simply do whatever. but the limitation effectively is the community as a whole--if the direction shift is seen widely as a rule violation, the community can protest and, failing in that, dissolve.

so i dont think the "rights" of ownership allow the owner to be arbitrary. whence the "numerous requests" in addition to an arbitrary-seeming action.

the other one has to do with the willingness of a religious community to talk to itself and not to other folk. that wouldn't interest me, but i know people who are much more into that sort of constrained dialogue within a narrow range of options. so each chooses where they want to play on the basis of the community rules that shape a space that they prefer. it's pretty easy, in principle.

to go back, the reason i think owners are constrained is that i this it more important that there be tolerance for dissent within any community that operates in socially recognizable ways (stays more or less within the rules or contract). there is no question but that the action of this "leed" character amounts to censorship. cyn and others who emphasize the property relation over the social relation switch the game and dissolve censorship under property rights. so shutting down debate, should it be important to the owner, is like deciding to mow your lawn in a different direction than you did before, to make new patterns in the grass, little squares maybe instead of lines.

that seems the conflict here--which frame applies.

[mcgeedo]

"
so i dont think the "rights" of ownership allow the owner to be arbitrary. "

You don't? The owner of an internet forum doesn't have the right to do with it as he/she wishes? Please elaborate why you think this.

[roachboy]

i did

[mcgeedo]

OK, thanks.

[The_Jazz]

I can't believe we have a hot-running debate on some other board's policies.

I'm glad that TFP is happy and healthy enough that we're now solving other people's problesm in abentia.

KnifeMissle, I think you pretty much summed it up with this thread's title. I don't know why they changed it, but then again, I don't much care. They get to define their sandbox however they want, and if they want to kill off intelligent and respectable debate (which is pretty much what I saw in the debates you linked), then more power to them. Maybe some of the better folks over there will find their way here.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I can't believe we have a hot-running debate on some other board's policies.

I'm glad that TFP is happy and healthy enough that we're now solving other people's problesm in abentia.

This cracks me up. Reminds me of when ktsp and I start analyzing other people's marriage problems and trying to come up with competing solutions to fix them (not that we ever communicate this to said people)... I guess that means we're doing well, right?

[shakran]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

It looks like I'm rather biased 'cause, if I were a member of said forum, I would welcome people to come in and debate the merits of various cars. I was also assuming the board would make more money with increased traffic but that's just me.

The board only makes more money with increased traffic if it's selling advertising, which we did not do.

The focus of the board was repair and upgrading of Hondas. It was not "insert-car-here is better than .. "

We were not set up as a car merit debate forum. It was a technical forum.

If the debates were nothing more than trolls exchanging pejoratives then I'd agree with changing policy (although I'd still keep it if it were making money).

What you have to realize is that even if you are a for-profit board, if you are a for-profit board that claims to be for people interested in a specific topic, and then you allow a bunch of chuckleheads with nothing better to do to say anything they want, and therefore make it difficult for people to discuss the topic of the board, you will eventually fail.

No, of course not. I think it's helpful for any advocacy site to have a dissenters' sub-forum, as you call it, to allow critical examination of their core beliefs. Otherwise, it's much easier to fool yourself and fall into self delusion and that's just sad and pathetic.

It may be sad and pathetic to you, but if it's what they want to discuss, then they have the right to restrict discussion for that. People who don't like it can start their own discussions.

The TFP doesn't need such a things 'cause it doesn't promote on any one point of view.

We still have such things. We don't allow spam. We don't allow flames. We don't allow non-conversational threads (i.e. if you post "I like purple" and nothing else, it will get removed). We do have a mission and focus here and posts which detract from it are indeed removed.

It's the same with them - the difference being our mission and focus is not centered on one specific topic, while theirs is.

[genuinegirly]

Originally Posted by abaya

This cracks me up. Reminds me of when ktsp and I start analyzing other people's marriage problems and trying to come up with competing solutions to fix them (not that we ever communicate this to said people)... I guess that means we're doing well, right?

Tt and I aren't the only ones who do this? heh.

I think it's sad that they would close their doors to open discussion. There are plenty of places where said discussion can take place. If they want to become isolationists, I hope their membership will agree with their decision.

[Coolyo]

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the New Testament (I'm not pro enough to get a quote) it tells Christians to be nice people, to "love thy neighbor

Also, By rejecting non-Christians, they are repelling more people away from Christianity.

Didn't people like Paul (the author of Romans) try to convert people to Christianity, not to shun them?

I don't think this ChristianForums.com is as "Christian" as it ought to be.

[mcgeedo]

"We still have such things. We don't allow spam. We don't allow flames. We don't allow non-conversational threads (i.e. if you post "I like purple" and nothing else, it will get removed). We do have a mission and focus here and posts which detract from it are indeed removed."

This was stated in reference to TFP, and seemed to be thought of as a good thing. When stated in reference to some Christian forum, it seems to be thought of as a bad thing. Hypocrisy much?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

"We still have such things. We don't allow spam. We don't allow flames. We don't allow non-conversational threads (i.e. if you post "I like purple" and nothing else, it will get removed). We do have a mission and focus here and posts which detract from it are indeed removed."

This was stated in reference to TFP, and seemed to be thought of as a good thing. When stated in reference to some Christian forum, it seems to be thought of as a bad thing. Hypocrisy much?

to whom are you saying "hypocrisy much?" to? The person who said this? or the person it was directed towards?

[shakran]

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

"We still have such things. We don't allow spam. We don't allow flames. We don't allow non-conversational threads (i.e. if you post "I like purple" and nothing else, it will get removed). We do have a mission and focus here and posts which detract from it are indeed removed."

This was stated in reference to TFP, and seemed to be thought of as a good thing. When stated in reference to some Christian forum, it seems to be thought of as a bad thing. Hypocrisy much?

Considering I was defending both the TFP and the Christian forum's decision to filter unwanted content, I would say, no, there is no hypocrisy.

[Borla]

I am a frequent user of a General Motors slanted automotive board. For a period of time we had a massive number of Ford enthusiasts trolling every pro-GM thead to the point where a rational discussion couldn't be had among GM fans. So the staff made it clear that certain forums on the board wouldn't allow that anymore, and then they enforced it. They invited the Ford fans to proclaim their pro-Ford arguments in other forums, but continued to enforce the ban on GM bashing in the rest.

Since it was a pro-GM board, that made total sense to me. There are/were plenty of pro-Ford boards in the automotive forum world for Ford fans.

Wouldn't the same principle apply here?

[mcgeedo]

shakran, you were defending both, and I didn't intend you to be the target of my comment. I'm laughing at those who have a double standard, and at those who seem to think that a privately owned/controlled board should, for some reason, have a fairness doctrine for dissenting opinions.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

shakran, you were defending both, and I didn't intend you to be the target of my comment. I'm laughing at those who have a double standard, and at those who seem to think that a privately owned/controlled board should, for some reason, have a fairness doctrine for dissenting opinions.

thanks for the clarification....

people don't seem to understand the real meanings of freedom and free speech.

[Terrell]

I pretty much agree with Willravel, it's a cowardly move IMO.

[curiousbear]

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Why don't they just have a "Theology (Christian believers only)" subforum and a "Theology (open discussion)" subforum? I expect that the believers only rule allows the discussion of the finer points, which is worthwhile, but they could still allow a section to argue the broader points as well.

YOU GAVE THE ANSWER AND SOLUTION. if only they are sound and healthy enough!

[pan6467]

I'm sorry but I can see how and why they want to have only their own.

If people want to go to a forum to talk about their beliefs and worship and just feel safe, why would you want people that are going to argue, make fun of you and so on.

The web is full of sites where one can go for argument and to discover other people's views. So what is wrong with respecting another's desire to have a site where they can have people who are of the same ilk?

It's like belonging to a Pagan forum, why would I want to go if all of a sudden a group of people started harassing me telling me I was going to Hell because I didn't worship Christ? Eventually, I would stop going, as would other pagans and the forum would die. Thus those who harassed got what they wanted. It's bullshit.

People who believe that "free speech" and "that they have the right" to go to another's forum to create havoc and problems are the small minded individuals, not the people with the forum.

Let's say with TFP, we had a group of members decide Porn was evil and they started posting on all the titty board threads how evil the porn was. Those people would not last. Let's say that Hal and the Admins, told these people "ok be here just you are banned from the porn"..... these people would then feel challenged and would start harassing ALL threads until Hal and the Admins said enough, you are banned period.

If I go to a recovery forum, I don't want to read about people currently getting high and talking down to me about recovery.

If I go to a forum where we talk about metaphysical properties of crystals, UFO's, goshts and so on..... I don't want to have to be harassed by non believers.

As social animals we strive to find those who are more like us. It doesn't mean we have closed minds, it means that perhaps we want to talk to each other, trade beliefs and so on with people who are more understanding of our beliefs. I have no desire to go to a forum I joined because they aligned closely with my beliefs and have to argue them. I can do that in forums like this that are broader and attract differing groups. Both types have their purposes. Both types are informative, ways to make friends and so on.

I have only 1 person in my friend list {and he requested to be there I don't send friend requests because of fear of rejection and I feel if someone wants to talk to me via IM or so on they will, I am not one to initiate, that's just how I am} that we have opposing political views. I have far more on this board that dislike me and have me on ignore because they dislike my political views. But they will have pages of friends who have the same political alignment. Are these people close minded? No, I don't believe so, I just believe they would rather talk to others that have more common beliefs.

Again, I reiterate, it is far more small minded, IMHO, to be judgmental and demanding that you have a say that goes against the whole forum, than it is to allow the forum and those people the respect, peace and comfort they seek.

[Aladdin Sane]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'm sorry but I can see how and why they want to have only their own.

If people want to go to a forum to talk about their beliefs and worship and just feel safe, why would you want people that are going to argue, make fun of you and so on.

The web is full of sites where one can go for argument and to discover other people's views. So what is wrong with respecting another's desire to have a site where they can have people who are of the same ilk?

It's like belonging to a Pagan forum, why would I want to go if all of a sudden a group of people started harassing me telling me I was going to Hell because I didn't worship Christ? Eventually, I would stop going, as would other pagans and the forum would die. Thus those who harassed got what they wanted. It's bullshit.

People who believe that "free speech" and "that they have the right" to go to another's forum to create havoc and problems are the small minded individuals, not the people with the forum.

Let's say with TFP, we had a group of members decide Porn was evil and they started posting on all the titty board threads how evil the porn was. Those people would not last. Let's say that Hal and the Admins, told these people "ok be here just you are banned from the porn"..... these people would then feel challenged and would start harassing ALL threads until Hal and the Admins said enough, you are banned period.

If I go to a recovery forum, I don't want to read about people currently getting high and talking down to me about recovery.

If I go to a forum where we talk about metaphysical properties of crystals, UFO's, goshts and so on..... I don't want to have to be harassed by non believers.

As social animals we strive to find those who are more like us. It doesn't mean we have closed minds, it means that perhaps we want to talk to each other, trade beliefs and so on with people who are more understanding of our beliefs. I have no desire to go to a forum I joined because they aligned closely with my beliefs and have to argue them. I can do that in forums like this that are broader and attract differing groups. Both types have their purposes. Both types are informative, ways to make friends and so on.

I have only 1 person in my friend list {and he requested to be there I don't send friend requests because of fear of rejection and I feel if someone wants to talk to me via IM or so on they will, I am not one to initiate, that's just how I am} that we have opposing political views. I have far more on this board that dislike me and have me on ignore because they dislike my political views. But they will have pages of friends who have the same political alignment. Are these people close minded? No, I don't believe so, I just believe they would rather talk to others that have more common beliefs.

Again, I reiterate, it is far more small minded, IMHO, to be judgmental and demanding that you have a say that goes against the whole forum, than it is to allow the forum and those people the respect, peace and comfort they seek.

Damn I should be so articulate! Thank you Pan, for writing what I can only think.

[roachboy]

i would agree with you, pan, except that if there is a theology section, there's an entire swatch of theology that addresses questions of uncertainty and/or unbelief WITHIN christianity itself.
that makes the question quite different from a recovery board being bombed with posts about getting high.

i don't particularly care about the board that km posted about in itself, but i think the move it made is bizarre precisely because it's not excluding non-believers alone--it's also defining what theology is in an unnecessary and arbitrary way. to my mind that's the problem.

they seem to me equally interested in excluding, say, catholics who are interested in the thinking of someone like william of ockham. it really makes no sense.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i would agree with you, pan, except that if there is a theology section, there's an entire swatch of theology that addresses questions of uncertainty and/or unbelief WITHIN christianity itself.
that makes the question quite different from a recovery board being bombed with posts about getting high.

i don't particularly care about the board that km posted about in itself, but i think the move it made is bizarre precisely because it's not excluding non-believers alone--it's also defining what theology is in an unnecessary and arbitrary way. to my mind that's the problem.

they seem to me equally interested in excluding, say, catholics who are interested in the thinking of someone like william of ockham. it really makes no sense.

Ah but if we delve not too deep into the OP's link on the board it states this:

Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.

Their rules state thus:

You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

As atheism is arguably a faith and most definitely a belief if I go and argue for atheism, I could be seen as breaking this rule.

Another rule states:

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.

If I go in with best intentions and ask how 1 came to their faith and how it has helped them, that is respectful and I would assume welcome, in accordance with their guidelines.

However, if I go in and start arguing there is no God or that I can't believe that these people would believe in such a thing, I am making a mockery of them and would definitely not be welcomed.

They have a statement of Faith for their forum in their rules:

Statement of Faith
This is the basis of which our non-promotion rule is based upon, and is the baseline for forum-specific guidelines. An individual forum may use the Nicene Creed without asterisks, a confession of faith, or other statements, provided such is an expansion of the CF statement of faith. However, forum-specific guidelines must not conflict with the CF Statement of Faith.

CF supports the following as a statement of faith:

We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), by the Power of the Holy Spirit was born of a Virgin (Luke 1:35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1:2; John 1:18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10:42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1:11).

That pretty much states, "This forum is for Christians and those believing in the Christian faith."

In the end it comes down to respect of others wishes and their desire to have their space.

I think they have set the rules out pretty well and have basically stated that it is a Christian forum created for Christians of many denominations {as seen by their denominational sub forums}.

I have a feeling within he forum there maybe discussion of different Christian Theologians that may interest them, they can debate about and it is a welcome topic. Debating the existence, power and faith one has in Christ I could see as being unwelcome.

[mcgeedo]

"it's also defining what theology is in an unnecessary and arbitrary way"

Unnecessary and arbitrary to whom? Them? Apparently not. Then to who else? You?

[roachboy]

depends if you know anything about christian theology, mcgeedo. if you know about the tradition and a significant dimension of it is lopped off, then it's arbitrary. of course, there's this other problem of who gets to call themselves christian, and who is by extension "not" christian. personally, i have alot of backround in philosophy/theology, but i suspect in that forum's universe most of it would be considered catholic which may or may not be "chrisitan"---it's just one of those ugly, petty little things that happens in some quarters.


if for some reason, you want to take me on over this, go for it, but dispense with the snippiness and make a coherent argument. i don't have time to bother with much else right now.

pan--i don't really have a stake in this question, nor do i particularly care about the forum--and i wouldn't myself participate in it mostly because i don't particularly care about such questions---my point is that all the rules you cited are fine, but unless catholic is not christian, my point still stands. the center of the problem is how and in what way a finite mind can "know"an infinite god. within that, there's another problem, which has to do with what faith actually means---different sectors of christianity define it differently---not all are about this inward-oriented faith---some are basically you demonstrate your committment by maintaining the rituals in more of less good faith---you don't have to believe in the same way as other folk--so there's space for stuff like negative theology--which leads you to an entirely different understanding of what faith might mean than you'd get in some evangelical baptist group.

so i'm only saying that there's a considerable diversity within christianity and doubt about the existence of god isnot a criterion for exclusion necessarily.

[Falconclaw240]

That does seem like a self destructive move, don't you think? Where I to be a founder of a religious forum, I would want it to be a basis of informing people of the religion’s beliefs, and hopefully converting them, wouldn't you?
Not many people are going to be inspired to change their beliefs by casually reading over debates by other people in the theology forum.
When I watch the presidential debates for example, I look for the candidate to answer myyy questions, not target people within their own party to ensure they don’t lose the funding.
It is for that reason, I believe, that voter turnout has such gaps in it
If I don't know what you will do for me, why give you my vote?

If I can't understand your religion, why give you my soul?

[mcgeedo]

Sorry, roach, the snippines wasn't intentional. I was just trying to be brief. To me, it seems obvious on the face of it that judging the owners of that Christian website and saying that they should do something they obviously don't want to do because you or others think you have a better handle on the topic doesn't make sense to me. You seem to feel strongly, as do I, so we're not going to change each others' opinions. To each their own, you and they.

[Halx]

Pan, if there were anyone here on the TFP who did not like porn, they would be debated, not removed. As long as they did what they do in a mature fashion, everything is cool.

That said, we're not affiliated with any specific viewpoint, so its impossible to compare us to a forum that is.