Kingdom Ready Blog

96 Comments »

96 Responses to “A Proposed Blog Policy”

1. on 27 Sep 2009 at 10:18 am1 John734

   Dear Sean

   Thank you for your mature and Godly councel regrading this upsetting matter.

   I sometimes think that when people communicate as part of a Web Community they feel a certain anonymity which can in some encourage a more bold approach to a subject than they might otherwise employ face to face.
   As you so rightly pointed out the word of God is our standard and that standard applies to each and everyone one of us whether we are in public or private.

   I am reminded of Jhn 13:35 KJV – By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another

   This applies whether the community knows who you are or if they don’t know you from Adam.
   When people submit responses all to often they want to point out objections and differences which when done is a loving non-critical way can be helpful and we can all learn and grow, lets face it none of us know it all and sometimes we all see different parts of the elephant!!

   Sometimes we need to ask questions to get to the reasons why someone believes a particular point. They may have a very valid reason which we will never get to if we
   don’t dig deeper.

   I guess it comes down to seeing people with respect, do you respect a fellow believer in their endeavor’s to seek first the Kingdom of God. If what they are doing is out of a good heart it will soon become evident and conversely if their motive is to sow strife
   then the guide lines Sean has suggested should come into play.
   If a persons motivation is good then ask yourself Are you willing to listen to another persons point? They may have a valid one but maybe you haven’t grasped it before.

   If you do disagree then provide scriptures you consider relevant and say why you consider them relevant. Showing people where you are coming from helps them see where your going.

   I also think people should take the time to say “well done” when they have read something they actually agree with. Positive encouragement can be a great motivator.

   When all is said and done when we stand before the Lord Jesus when he comes to establish his Kingdom there is not a one of us that will stand there in that day
   and expound our own self righteousness in how right we were. Until God clothes us with the robes of righteousness we are all dressed in the filthy rags of sin. So we should get off our high horses and self righteous crusades and remember just what’s really important. To Love God with all our heart soul mind and strength and each other as ourselves.

   Please bear with me for one more comment…
   Something that I have thought of a few times lately and something I would like to study from the word is just how did Jesus deal with the many viewpoints expounded during his day. For the most part I think he just let them get on with it (the blind will follow the blind and both shall fall into the ditch) but when his words or actions were challenged he definitely stood up to that and brought everything back to God.
   He spent his time being busy doing the work of God not going around criticizing those who weren’t. I think it’s a good example to follow.

   Thanks for listening and remember if the shoe fits…

   John

2. on 27 Sep 2009 at 1:21 pm2 Ray

   John 734 gave us a good word (John 13:35) here and some good
   dirrection.

   We should be willing to question with good questions when we find it to be right to ask, hold to the truth we have received, and
   communicate without fear. We should seek to do all this in respect
   for God and one another.

   Let’s be aware of rebukes when no good reason for rebuke is apparent. If we see a rebuke that doesn’t seem warranted, let’s
   learn to respectfully question the rebuke.

   Jesus questioned the matter of some of his disciples found eating bread without washing their hands. (See Mark 7)

3. on 28 Sep 2009 at 9:58 am3 Mark C.

   When discussing Scripture, we must be careful to avoid the attitude of “I know the truth and you don’t.” It doesn’t help anybody to just say, “This is what’s true” without demonstrating FROM SCRIPTURE why we believe it to be the truth. Far too often I have presented viewpoints, backed up with Scripture, only to have someone reply with a sweeping, “That’s not true,” usually with no Scriptural evidence. Or if they do present evidence, it fails to deal with the points I have presented. A rebuttal needs to address the specific points in the argument it is rebutting, and demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE why they are in error. Otherwise it turns into the Monty Python sketch that I have quoted here more than once – “No it isn’t… yes it is… no it isn’t… This isn’t an argument, it’s merely contradiction… No it isn’t… yes it is!”

   It is also important to carefully read and consider what the other view is. So often I’ve seen debates here where questions are asked repeatedly that were already answered, or where one party says the other party believes something, when in fact the other party has clearly demonstrated that they do not believe that.

   And finally it is extremely important, in light of the Scriptures Sean quoted above, to separate differences of opinion from personal animosity. We should use phrases such as:
   -In my opinion
   -I disagree with your conclusion (give reasons)
   -Your view contradicts such and such a Scripture (provide references)
   -Your facts are in error (provide references)

   We should avoid phrases such as:
   -I speak the truth
   -You’re wrong
   -You love men’s opinions rather than The Truth
   -That’s nonsense
   -You don’t know what you’re talking about

   Views and opinions can and should be challenged, and defended from Scripture. “Truth needs no defense” is not applicable here, since the reason there is a debate is because it has not been established what “the truth” is on that issue. If a viewpoint doesn’t stand up to such challenges and can’t be defended from Scripture, then perhaps the viewpoint needs to be reconsidered. However, if both parties are convinced of their views and each feels the other party “just doesn’t see it,” it is better to conclude the debate by “agreeing to disagree” rather than to go on and on beating the issue to death, or derailing another thread by bringing up the argument again when it is unrelated to the thread.

   Just a few ideas about debating in a forum like this. Let’s hope we can demonstrate Christian kindness and compassion here.

4. on 28 Sep 2009 at 12:55 pm4 Ken

   What a great godly, loving reminder to all of us! How many of us have so zealous to share the gospel message (or maybe our views about the meaning of the gospel,) that we have failed to slow down, pause, and reflect on our Christian duty to approach others with true love and compassion. In addition to the wonderful Scriptural guidelines that Sean has outlined above, 2 Timothy 2 :23-26 has loving reminders we all should heed: avoiding quarrels, not being contentious, being patient, being gentle to instruct others, etc. The “blog policy” here emphasizes the importance of such godly behavior. This is a very timely, helpful step toward an “edifying” atmosphere in which to exchange ideas.

5. on 28 Sep 2009 at 1:47 pm5 robert

   Ken
   as for your post in kingdom thread i believe that we have read and understood it completely. some were even instumental in it coming about and some are being accused of being the cause. some have made it clear that i am the biggest cause.
   I agree with Sean even though i have stepped over that line on occasions and others doing it was not a good excuse. i am not one to tippy toe around and it rubs people the wrong way. I am a very likeable person by most people who know me and very respected which sometimes i feel i am not deserving. these people like the fact i speak what needs to be spoke not worrying about what people think of me. these people know they will here the truth from me not lies to please them.

   If Jesus was to come here, he would speak the truth whether you liked it or not and i expect he wouldnt be very well received as it was when he was here before.
   he might even call some people fools or maybe sons of satan. the truth may hurt but it is necessary.

6. on 28 Sep 2009 at 2:24 pm6 Ken

   Robert,
   Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.
   It is wonderful that we can grow in understanding about edification in communicating. Being “polite” to one another certainly should not be a superficial exercise in watering down the truth; it should be a humble endeavor in learning to obey Scriptural reminders. I’m still growing and learning; I am surely not critical or condemning of anyone else who is still in the learning process. God bless you. Ken

7. on 30 Sep 2009 at 12:49 pm7 Mark C.

   Sean wrote:

   I have experienced the frustration and anguish of beings censored so I really do not want to do it to others. Ideally, we would be able to use the Scriptures and reason to patiently convince people over time.

   I fully understand your thinking on this. Nobody likes being censored or banned. But there is one important difference we should keep in mind. You went on those forums in hopes of sharing your understanding of the Scriptures. You were prepared to present evidence from Scripture and demonstrate reasons for your belief. But rather than engage in debate they banned you.

   In contrast, there have been a few posters here who have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in debate. They proclaim their beliefs but when anyone questions or contradicts, they respond with “That’s your opinion.” If anyone tries to correct their errors in logic or interpretation, they just fall back on, “That’s your interpretation.” And sometimes (though not always) it turns into personal accusations and judgments.

   If anyone wants to debate issues and do it from Scripture, there is no problem. However, they need to address the specific points that are made by those who challenge their views. As I said above, if after logical, honest debate both parties still don’t see each other’s views, then they can agree to disagree, and still maintain brotherly love.

   On the other hand, someone who just continues to proclaim their beliefs with no intention of debating them is simply hijacking and derailing a thread, which is not good etiquette in a forum, not to mention unloving and unchristian. (It isn’t just one person that does this, BTW.) Even when we ignore them, they tend to bring down the whole tone of the blog, so that some people, as you mentioned, choose not to post rather than be bated into unprofitable arguments.

   So in addition to general rules of conduct, perhaps guidelines on how to debate should be part of the Blog Policy, and anyone not willing to observe those guidelines should not keep posting their views and derailing threads.

8. on 30 Sep 2009 at 2:17 pm8 Ken

   The book of Titus has a great reminder in the context of an elder’s qualifications: “He must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught; then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and show those who oppose it where they are wrong” (1: 9) It seems that a true rule of the heart is in play. It might be said that a prerequisite to convincing others (who contradict the truth) is the loving patience of heart to encourage others with wholesome words. “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people.” I Timothy 2: 24
   If when both sides engage in a debate (or more than 2 sides are represented,) in which any party has potential truth to share (and any party could learn from others), an attitude of heart like Titus 1:9/I Timothy 2: 24 held and practiced by each side will produce a godly example in the handling of controversies. God expects us to be slow to anger, like He is. Man’s anger does not result in God’s righteousness – James 1: 20. Thus we should be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to get angry … – (v. 19)

9. on 01 Oct 2009 at 8:36 am9 daniel

   1 Cor 8: 1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.

   We all have knowledge of many things, the kingdom, one God,
   paradise, shoel,…meat and milk can refer to what we know.

   Knowledge makes us arrogant, but love edifies.
   v. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know.
   v. 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

   In my reference bible v. 9-13 is referred back to Romans 14… know-
   ing more than or less than, disdaining or judging another Christian
   brother. We should be concerned, careful, that what we know or
   think we know is not ruining the brother for whose sake Christ
   died (v. 11) causing him to stumble (quarrel, anger) when he is weak.
   Are we are sinning against Christ? (v. 12)

10. on 02 Oct 2009 at 8:26 am10 Sean

    Dear all,

    I’m so sorry for not having the time to catch up on things until today. College is really overwhelming and I don’t find much time to read comments. I have now caught up on the comments in the Kingdom thread as well as this one. I’m pleased to see how many are participating in these matters and I think this is an indication that we are all ready for this Blog Policy.

    I have incorporated the verses mentioned by Ken, my esteemed elder in the faith, and have put them into the main body of the Blog Policy. We would all do well to read these verses over again. After all the Scriptures carry the authority over all of us and our responsibility before God is to obey them.

    I have read and thought deeply about Mark’s suggestion for a debate policy and have asked him to construct one. Hopefully he will post it in a couple of days.

    I also have added in a new step in the Suggested Policy at the bottom of the Blog Policy post. Prior the steps were just 1-3 and now they are 1-4. The new step requires informing by email myself or Victor that step #1 has been done. Our email addresses are posted above. Anyone is free to do step #1 but the official warning must come from either myself or Victor.

    Again, the purpose of this policy is not erode freedom but to give us freedom from the tyranny of those who are doing the things mentioned in “What Is Considered Inappropriate” (see above). May God help us as we endeavor to seek truth as a community.

11. on 02 Oct 2009 at 11:27 am11 Xavier

    “Paul calls sound doctrine that which renders men sound, i.e., endowed with charity, unfeigned faith and a good conscience; but unsound, that which renders them meddlesome, quarrelsome, insolent, ungodly, unholy, profane, murderers of fathers, etc. (1 Tim. 1:5,9), and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

    But they observe the law, for they take for sound those who agree with them about Baptism, about the Supper, about Predestination, etc. Such men, though they be covetous, envious, slanderers, hypocrites, liars, buffoons, usurers, and whatever else opposed to sound doctrine, are easily endured, nor is anyone killed for men’s vices, unless one has committed murder or theft or some atrocious crime of this sort, or has displeased the preachers, for this with them is just like a sin against the Holy Spirit, as is now said in a proverb everywhere common…

    …But if one disagrees with them about Baptism, or the Supper, Justification, faith, etc., he is a Heretic, he is a Devil, he must be opposed by all men on land and sea, as an eternal enemy of the Church, and a wicked destroyer of sound doctrine, even though his life be otherwise blameless, yea gentle, patient, kind, merciful, generous, and indeed religious and god-fearing, so that in his conduct neither friends nor enemies have anything to complain of.  All these virtues and this innocence of life (which Paul did not think it unseemly to approve in himself) cannot with them protect a man from being regarded as wicked and blasphemous, if he disagrees with them in any point of religion…

    “To protect a doctrine is not the magistrate’s affair (what has the sword to do with doctrine?) but the teacher’s…To seek truth and to utter what one believes to be true can never be a crime. No one must be forced to accept a conviction. Conviction is free…”

    Sebastian Castellon

12. on 02 Oct 2009 at 6:57 pm12 Mark C.

    Here are my suggestions for a debate policy. Some of it I have stated before, but I have put it into the form of a guideline with numbered points.

    1. Keep in mind that while you may be convinced that what you speak is the Truth, others are equally convinced about the truth of what they say. No one has “all the truth” and we must all be aware of the possibility that we could have been mistaken or misled. We have not always known what we know now, and at some point (or points) in our lives we have all come to realize that something we once believed was wrong. Pr. 11:14 – “Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory.”

    2. When presenting your viewpoints, it is not sufficient for debate to simply proclaim what you believe, especially if that viewpoint differs from either “mainstream” Christianity or the views of the majority on this board. You must present evidence from the Scriptures as to why you believe what you believe.

    3. Frequently a viewpoint or belief is backed up with Scripture, by means of incorrect interpretation or faulty logic. When presenting a rebuttal to another poster’s presentation, as has been stated above, use compassion and brotherly kindness, and avoid name-calling and making judgments about the poster’s intelligence, character, or motives.

    4. In a rebuttal to another poster’s views, it is not sufficient to make sweeping generalizations, such as “That’s wrong,” “That’s ridiculous,” “That’s just your opinion,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” etc. A rebuttal must address the specific issues in the view you are rebutting, and demonstrate from Scripture why you believe them to be in error.

    5. Faulty logic can be demonstrated fairly simply. An error in interpretation may be more difficult to prove. One of the biggest keys in interpreting the Bible is that all passages of Scripture on a given subject must agree and fit together without contradiction. If there are two possible ways to interpret a passage, but one contradicts other Scriptures while the other fits, then the one that fits is more likely to be correct.

    6. If, after open, honest debate, two parties still do not agree on an issue, and each side is convinced that the other “just can’t see it,” then the Christian thing to do is to “agree to disagree” and not continue wrangling and arguing about it. We will never agree on everything, so this will likely be how many debates will conclude.

    7. What we should avoid is taking the attitude of “I must proclaim The Truth, and continue to proclaim it whether they want to hear it or not.” If parties agree to disagree on a matter, they should let it go, and not keep bringing it up, especially in other threads that have nothing to do with the matter on which they disagree. If a poster continually proclaims his views with no intention of debating, it is seen as bating an argument, which detracts from a thread as well as engendering strife.

    II Tim. 2:
    23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
    24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
    25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.

    Titus 2:
    9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

    Hopefully these points will help us to avoid much of the arguing and wrangling we have seen of late. Again, these are my suggestions, and I leave it up to Sean to implement them or not. Any suggestions for changes or amendments are welcome.

13. on 02 Oct 2009 at 10:20 pm13 Xavier

    “But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one…If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.”

14. on 03 Oct 2009 at 7:41 am14 Sean

    Xavier, could you please explain your quotes rather than just citing them?

15. on 03 Oct 2009 at 8:34 am15 Xavier

    Sean, if its of any use to anyone for your proposed “blog policy”.

16. on 04 Oct 2009 at 2:09 am16 Ron S.

    I admire Sean’s policy about not censuring or preventing people from posting, because like him I’ve encountered some of that myself and did not like it one bit.

    That said I realize that having a wide-open policy of allowing ANY and ALL viewpoints can bring about a lot of problems and drag discussions not just off topic – but ultimately into the proverbial ditch.

    This is where some kind of “moderator” might come into play to step in and try to keep the forum comments “on point” and not get off into uncharted and unwanted waters – what I’ve often termed “crazyland”. I know the line between what is black and what is white is often a wide, WIDE gray area. But I think many of the points Sean has brought up are valid and would help keep things civil and on track.

17. on 04 Oct 2009 at 3:45 am17 Wolfgang

    Hi,

    This is where some kind of “moderator” might come into play to step in and try to keep the forum comments “on point” and not get off into uncharted and unwanted waters – what I’ve often termed “crazyland”.

    it seems to me that the crux of the matter is mentioned here … what are those “uncharted and unwanted waters” ??
    Should a moderator step in and ban a posters understanding as “unwanted” because it contradicts what the moderator or majority of the posters believe? Would such behavior not already be censorship?

    If certain understandings are already declared “unwanted”, would such a blog or website not already show itself to be “closed” and really to be not better than those blogs which some mentioned from where they had been banned or kicked out?

    I would think that a “blog policy” should only concern itself with certain rules concerning “behavior” towards others and perhaps some technical matters of how to post, reply, etc… BUT that there should not be any “policy” regarding what understanding or interpretation may be posted and which may not be posted … EXCEPT IF one would declare the blog as being of a certain denominational/theological direction (with a “statement of beliefs” as dogmatic rule) where ONLY supporting but no critical posts are allowed.

    What kind of blog is this blog supposed to be?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

18. on 04 Oct 2009 at 9:52 am18 robert

    The disciples offended many, were put in prison and were killed for their bold testimony, but they also won many to God. The people they influenced were more committed than most today, as the bold testimony of the Apostles example motivated them to put their life right.

    Could Jesus or the Disciples effectively get their message across without offending people here?

    Would their message be met with Tradition or Scriptures?

    Would their message be met with Love or Arrogance?

    Is polite arrogance in fact love?

    Should the truth be suppressed for the sake of feelings?

    What is not against God should never offend those of God!

19. on 04 Oct 2009 at 5:32 pm19 Mark C.

    Just a reminder… we are not talking about censoring or limiting WHAT people say. We are talking about HOW they say it. Anybody can present viewpoints that disagree, but to keep things civil and intelligent, they should be presented with sound reasoning for WHY you believe it, rather than just saying “You’re wrong and I’m right.” Otherwise, as we have seen, the discussions degenerate quickly into “Yes it is… No it isn’t” type of arguments which are unprofitable and do not glorify God.

20. on 04 Oct 2009 at 5:42 pm20 Sean

    Robert,

    Neither you or I are apostles…please conduct yourself by the blog policy or else you will just have to find another community with looser rules. The Scriptures we quoted are clear. Please cooperate. As Mark has pointed out, we are not telling you that you cannot disagree with people, we are saying that if you disagree you are to do so in a Christian manner. Since we are not apostles but their followers it is incumbent upon us to obey what they said.

21. on 04 Oct 2009 at 6:10 pm21 robert

    I do not understand your response in light of what i wrote and asked. It seems that you interpreted it by Marks post. they were fair questions and a true fact about the disciples.
    I didnt deserve that response like i was some kind of lessor being.
    did my post indictate that i wasnt planning on cooperating.

    You have no idea who i am

22. on 04 Oct 2009 at 7:33 pm22 Sean

    Robert,

    You have no idea who i am

    who are you?

23. on 04 Oct 2009 at 8:30 pm23 robert

    first i am a person just as you and deserve the same respect as you give yourself and others who you call friends.
    the statement was made because you were defining who i was not as if you knew who i was.
    i am not greek nor jew and deserve the same bias you give others.
    you can format this place anyway you see fit and if i want to post here i will follow. i have never had a problem with rules as long as they are unbias in how they are enforced.
    there is more to being a child of God and a good disciple than the rules you have chose. but this isnt the Kingdom of God its just a blog.
    there will come a time soon when you will know who i am and what my whole message is whether i am here or not.

24. on 04 Oct 2009 at 8:33 pm24 Sean

    Robert,

    I did not in anyway disrespect you, nor am I going to argue with you about whether or not I am biased against you. I have been exceedingly patient towards you (as you have said yourself). Would you do us all a favor and reveal to us who you are and what your whole message is? Why play games? Just tell us what you want to say.

25. on 04 Oct 2009 at 9:12 pm25 robert

    I can promise you this is no game. it will not be me who reveals who i am

26. on 04 Oct 2009 at 9:25 pm26 Sean

    Robert,

    Who will reveal who you are? Am I just supposed to guess or are you going to provide clues like Servetus the Evangelical?

27. on 04 Oct 2009 at 9:44 pm27 robert

    Sean
    this is no game
    I have no clue who or how, just you were called by God for greater things and you will not be able to deny it without cost.
    for this reason i came here.
    thats all i know right now

28. on 04 Oct 2009 at 9:56 pm28 Sean

    Robert,

    Is that a prophecy someone said about you? “That you were called by God for greater things…” or were you prophesying that about me?

29. on 04 Oct 2009 at 10:02 pm29 robert

    I know what my calling is and it is certainly not writing.
    call what i said what you want its doesnt change it.
    the time is near

30. on 04 Oct 2009 at 10:15 pm30 Sean

    Robert,

    What is your calling? Why are you so defensive all the time? The time is near for what?

31. on 04 Oct 2009 at 10:43 pm31 robert

    I gave you a peek at my calling and you saw it was good

    why should you say i am defensive when the claim before was that i was offensive. i think i am equally balance.

    THE TRUTH

32. on 05 Oct 2009 at 12:17 am32 Xavier

    Sean, do us all a favour and get rid of this guy…as funny as this last exchange has been, in retrospect it edifies no one and nothing!!

33. on 05 Oct 2009 at 7:37 am33 Sean

    Xavier,

    I will not “get rid of” anyone. I’m against that sort of thinking. I was just trying to understand Robert and why he acts the way he does. Ideally Robert would be able to continue to share with us in this community. The censorship policy is clear (above) and everyone will be held to account for it.

34. on 05 Oct 2009 at 9:42 am34 robert

    If thats all you needed to understand, all you needed was to ask.

    The love of my God and Jesus’ God is my motivation for everything i do, the first and greatest commandment as spoke by Jesus. everything else falls in behind that, even myself.

    I have never posted anything here against God

35. on 05 Oct 2009 at 11:42 am35 Xavier

    robert, your posts may not be of a “blasphemous” nature AGAINST God or Jesus, but they are offensive to common sense and reason.

    I repeat, who is being edified by any of this???!!!

36. on 05 Oct 2009 at 11:57 am36 robert

    Xavier
    Thank you for your kind comment

37. on 05 Oct 2009 at 12:01 pm37 Xavier

    robert, ditto…

38. on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:12 am38 robert

    on 05 Oct 2009 at 11:42 am35 Xavier
    “robert, your posts may not be of a “blasphemous” nature AGAINST God or Jesus, but they are offensive to common sense and reason.”

    Xavier
    as to the guidelines for posting here this comment was unnecessary and unchristian.
    guidelines #2 and #7
    Examples on how to act as christian are listed below.

    2.Attacking people’s intelligence, motives, or character rather than their arguments. (i.e. calling people stupid, etc.)

    7.Disrespect towards others (i.e. sarcastic statements intended to belittle, inappropriate labeling of people, overly critical demeanor towards a certain person, etc.)

    Col 3:8 [NASB]
    But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

    Col 4:6 [NASB]
    Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

    Jam 1.26 [NASB]
    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless

39. on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:57 am39 Xavier

    robert, let’s see how many people come to your defense ‘my friend’…

40. on 06 Oct 2009 at 10:12 am40 robert

    I dont think popularity should enter into this one because it doesnt change the fact it was against the guidelines and was unchristian.
    if these guidelines are going to work they have to be enforced impartially.what anyone done before these guildlines were created has to be forgiving and shouldnt be held against them as long as that person follows the guidelines.
    there can be no exceptions even you

41. on 06 Oct 2009 at 2:35 pm41 Mark C.

    I hesitate to get drawn into this kind of wrangling again, but I would point out that Xavier’s comment to Robert was referring to Robert’s posts and not to Robert himself. “Your posts may not be of a “blasphemous” nature AGAINST God or Jesus, but they are offensive to common sense and reason.”

    As for bringing up something that was done before the guidelines were posted, the comment was in response to Robert’s statement that, “I have never posted anything here against God,” and was pointing out what Xavier thought was wrong with many of Robert’s posts. It was then further clarified: “I repeat, who is being edified by any of this???!!!”

    Let’s all try to be edifying in what we post. As I have said before, anybody can post opinions that differ, but it is the attitude with which one posts that causes strife and division, and that’s what needs to be avoided.

42. on 06 Oct 2009 at 3:14 pm42 robert

    His comment was everything i pointed out in Post 38.

    2.Attacking people’s intelligence, motives, or character rather than their arguments. (i.e. calling people stupid, etc.)

    It was an attack on my intelligence, motive and character

    7.Disrespect towards others (i.e. sarcastic statements intended to belittle, inappropriate labeling of people, overly critical demeanor towards a certain person, etc.)

    It was an uncalled for comment to belittle me.

    they were my words i wrote therefore the comment was made toward my ability and my intelligence.

    you cant insult words only the person they came from.

    I expected this to have been addressed last night.

    These guidelines should of gave us the ability to have fresh starts with each other but comments like Xaviers trys to keep the old around.
    I admitted i stepped over the line, forgave those who stepped over the line themselves. I recommend others to do the same or this will never work.

43. on 06 Oct 2009 at 3:21 pm43 robert

    “I hesitate to get drawn into this kind of wrangling again,”

    Little comments like these do harm too and are not christian motivated.

44. on 06 Oct 2009 at 4:02 pm44 Mark C.

    “I hesitate to get drawn into this kind of wrangling again,”

    Little comments like these do harm too and are not christian motivated.

    How in the world does that comment harm anyone?

    As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is not what you say, nor your intelligence, motive and character that is the problem. The problem is the attitude. It really comes across as if you are trying to bate an argument. Even if that’s not your intention, can you at least see how it comes across that way?

45. on 06 Oct 2009 at 4:30 pm45 robert

    “How in the world does that comment harm anyone?”

    be honest was that statement aimed at me if so then it implies that i only was the problem and implies that i was doing something less than honest.

    i have no interest in an arguement with you.

    Uncalled for comments like yours and Xaviers do bother me and there you have the harm unless i really dont deserve the common decency that of a human.

    “It really comes across as if you are trying to bate an argument. Even if that’s not your intention, can you at least see how it comes across that way?”

    no i cant, considering this wouldnt even be mentioned without you entering this on your own.

    i could be talking to someone in a public place loud enough for other people to hear and still could have a private conversation if the people around are considerate enough to respect the 2 people talking.

    please just leave uncalled for comments off the keyboard and then there will be no possibilty no one is offended by it.

46. on 06 Oct 2009 at 7:55 pm46 Sean

    Gentlemen,

    Let’s not go on about this any longer. There are fascinating Bible discussions to be had on other posts. Xavier, your comment was border-line. Robert, thank you for holding us all accountable to the policy. Mark, your point is entirely valid: attitude is everything. The trouble with e-communication is that tone is missing. I would suggest that everyone assume that a positive tone is in place at all times unless the content of the message can only be taken as rude or angry or whatever. Let’s all press on to more fruitful discussions.

47. on 06 Oct 2009 at 8:14 pm47 Ray

    This reminds me of one of Christiana’s boys, Matthew, who fell sick
    of something called the Gripes. Nearby was a Mr. Skill who asked if the boy had eaten anything unwholesome, for there was something in his bowels undigested that wouldn’t go away.

    Christiana’s other boy Samuel noted that early on in the way there was some trees that hung over the wall and Matthew knocked some of the fruit down and ate some. Mr. Skill knew that it wasn’t
    wholesome for it was from Beelzebub’s orchard.

    First he tried making a laxative of the blood of a goat, ashes of a heifer, and other ingredients but it proved to be too weak. Next,
    Mr. Skill prepared one for it’s purpose, made into pills with a promise or two and an appropriate portion of Salt.

    This went contrary to the boy’s stomach (according to the boy’s words) but his mother told him he had to take it. The doctor said it had no bad taste and when Christiana tasted it, she said it was sweeter than honey, and if he loved his mother and brother, he would take it, which he did, and it caused him to purge, puting him into a fine fever and breaking sweat. He quickly recovered and began to tell about his distemper and how he was healed.

48. on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:28 pm48 Xavier

    Sean, seems I am always “borderline”, maybe that’s why I have not gotten killed in the many debates I have had with trinis

    As a result, I have learned not “to answer foolish arguments of fools [lest I] become as foolish as they are”, since you “waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice” [Pro 26.4; 23.9].

    Just to make it clear, I do not think that this violates the lord’s commandment of calling your fellow believer [brother] a “fool” lest they be liable to “the hell of fire” [Mat 5.22]. The Proverbs quotes refers to either non-believers or “heathens” who the Bible sometimes refers to in very picturesque ways [cp. Jesus' 7 "woes" to the "teachers of the Law, Mat 23; "your Father the Devil", Jn 8.44; "you brood of vipers", Mat 3.7; 12:34; 23:33].

49. on 07 Oct 2009 at 9:10 pm49 Ray

    Xavier,
    Am I missing something here? I say this because I had always read
    Matthew 5:22 as saying that if I call a brother a “fool”, I may be in
    danger of hell fire.

    Therefore I have deferred to not do so on many occasions, though I had often thought it well worth the risk. Yet, I didn’t want to temp
    God and so I refrained my speech.

    I have the KJV. Is this verse different in some other translation?

    My 1599 Geneva says it about the same way as the KJV. (Matt 5:22)

50. on 08 Oct 2009 at 12:13 am50 Xavier

    Ray, Mat 5.22 does have variant readings (I was just making the distinction between what the Bible defines as your “brother” (fellow believer) and non-believers (including former “brothers”).

    For example, Mat 5.22 simply warns fellow believers “against the dangerous and destructive effect of human anger”. Edspecially when it presents itself amongst fellow believers (“brothers”). The penalty for this is harsh since “anger typically entails a desire to damage or destroy the other person, either in some personal way or literally in the form of murder” (all quotes from the ESV study Bible, Mat 5.22).

    Lastly, I was making the point that the “harsh” passages in scripture where some people are called “fools, dullards, double minded, sons of satan” et al (cp. Mat 7.24-26, “the foolish man”; 2Pe 3.16, “ignorant, unstable”; 3.14; Eph 2.3, “accursed children of wrath”), are distinct from those mentioned by Jesus in Mat 5.22 (cp. “who are my brothers?” Mat 12.48-50).

51. on 14 Nov 2009 at 6:43 pm51 John A

    Sean

    After my experiences over the past couple of weeks responding to blogs on this site I would like to offer the following observations.

    It seems to me that when someone posts an article that is their chance to say what they want to say, so lets say I were to post an article
    I can make it as short as I like of break it up into weekly sections for a longer post. As the author I have that control. Once that article is posted in all reality I should be done.

    Comments are there for those who read the article to have their chance to respond with their viewpoint. It may agree with the article, it may point out something the author missed or it may disagree and hopefully it explains why they disagree in a courteous and respectful manner. This is free speech in operation, is it not?

    I think we get into problems when people try to convince everybody else why they are “right”
    if I were to post an article and someone responded with a comment where they disagreed with what I had said, why should I feel compelled to respond and “argue” my point, or try to re-in-force my point, I’ve had my say now its their turn.

    A third party who then reads the article and then reads other comments can make up their own mind and they can make their own comment it they want to. If they want the author to respond or clarify a point then they can ask a specific question.

    I have read articles on other web sites that then offer a place for people to respond, I can read the article, read peoples comments make my own comment if I want to and move on. Its not an ongoing debate between author and respondents.

    I think it becomes a “war zone” when we try to convince each other of our point of view. Which quiet clearly we are not always going to do.

    There is a great saying “Less is more” which I think could be applicable here.

    God Bless

    John

52. on 14 Nov 2009 at 11:12 pm52 Ray

    When I read John’s post (51) I thought of two things, pride and self-righteousness. There are times when we are to come against
    something. There are times when we may go against something.
    There are times when it is best to leave something alone.

    There are times when the axe is laid to the root of the tree, and God may use anybody to pick it up and start swinging. It doesn’t feel good. That’s happened to me because I grew in a way not good.

    Maybe I should think of it more as a pruning. Lots of times this is something God does without using others, if I act quickly enough.

    This interaction is a good way of being perfected. It’s my hopes that we will all see the gospel at work in our lives and the light of Christ begin to shine more brightly through us. I think I’ve begun to see that here on this blog. It’s good to see God perfecting us.

53. on 13 Apr 2010 at 11:51 am53 Joseph

    Robert,

    I agree with your position. One time I was flamed by the moderator JohnO because I posted 4 times in a row. He said that it makes it so the top posts may kick out another subject that others are discussing. I felt this was ridiculous to have the blog set up in a way where one is limited to how many posts they make in a given amount of time.

    I have a solution, and I’ll say it once more. Make a “see more” link under the top 7 posts on the main page that goes to a bigger page that will show the top 50 or so posts.

    Problem solved, post away.

54. on 13 Apr 2010 at 11:57 am54 Joseph

    If you guys are running the blog with WordPress, it shouldn’t be that difficult.

55. on 13 Apr 2010 at 12:01 pm55 Jaco

    Mark,

    Can we have those posts up which Robert speaks about? I’m very curious about what he said.

    Regards,

    Jaco

56. on 13 Apr 2010 at 2:26 pm56 Sean

    Jaco,

    Robert was banned until he agrees to practice the simple Christian guidelines for communication stated in this censorship policy (including being respectful and kind to Mark as well as everyone else). If you would like to talk to him and find out his views on any matter, please email him. His email is theluttralls2@aol.com.

57. on 13 Apr 2010 at 2:48 pm57 Wolfgang

    Sean,
    what is more confusing:
    writing 5 posts with a distinct matter each, to which other people can easily reply? or combining 5 posts of distinct points into one big post which is not only harder to read for other people but to which it is more difficult to reply?

    IF one wants to claim that those censorship policy guidelines are CHRISTIAN guidelines for communication, I wonder why writing 5 posts in a row in a manner described above in my question would be less Christian than combining them into 1 multi-point post? Is such type of CENSORSHIP of posts by other Christian believers on a blog like this even CHRISTIAN?

    Cheers
    Wolfgang

58. on 13 Apr 2010 at 3:06 pm58 Sean

    Wolfgang,

    I assure you there was more to the decision than his discourtesy in overloading the recent comments. Thank you for your concern. As for the Christian Guidelines please read the verses quoted above under the heading “Biblical Guidelines for Communication.”

    ~cheers

59. on 13 Apr 2010 at 7:58 pm59 Joseph

    Well, Sean and Mark, looks like you lost another participant. I’ve been around this blog for a few years now. I won’t return to this blog unless Robert is reinstated and his posts are posted.

    I don’t tolerate censorship. Especially since I know that Robert is a good guy looking for truth. Sure, he can respond in ways that may be a bit rash, but I’ve seen MUCH MUCH worse posted by Andrew the Oneness proponent, and he got to speak all he wanted to.

    I don’t want to leave, but a stand needs to be made by someone.

    - Joseph

60. on 13 Apr 2010 at 8:03 pm60 Doubting Thomas

    Joseph does have a point about Andrew. I remember Jaco repeatedly asking for the moderator to say something to him but nothing was ever said…

61. on 13 Apr 2010 at 8:32 pm61 Sean

    Andrew was confronted and that’s why he left.

62. on 13 Apr 2010 at 9:01 pm62 Doubting Thomas

    Sean
    Sorry. I didn’t realize that…

63. on 13 Apr 2010 at 9:05 pm63 Doubting Thomas

    Joseph
    Robert asked me to tell you that he has a choice to make about being reinstated and it’s up to him to decide. And it will all be OK and to tell you that you don’t need to make a stand for him…

64. on 13 Apr 2010 at 9:22 pm64 Mark C.

    Robert made his choice already. He was given many opportunities to abide by the guidelines, and when confronted he argued about it. It has nothing to do with censorship, as we had no problem with his disagreeing and presenting differing viewpoints.

65. on 14 Apr 2010 at 5:05 pm65 Doubting Thomas

    I was asked to post this apology on behalf of Robert.

    First I want to apologize to Mark for putting him in the position to do what he had to do and for challenging his authority here.

    Second I would like to apologize to everyone who has been offended by my behavior.

    Third I’d like to apologize to Sean for putting this site in jeopardy of division.

    The best I can promise is to try harder because this site is worth it.

    - Robert

66. on 14 Apr 2010 at 8:46 pm66 Mark C.

    The entire statement from Robert is as follows:

    To Whom it my concern.

    The day before yesterday I broke the rules for use of this Blog by posting 2 post back to back. I was then confronted by Mark and warned. At this point I challenged Mark’s Authority and posted 2 more posts back to back and forced Mark’s hand. Whether it was my intention to force Mark’s hand is not relevant because my prior challenge to Mark set the stage. After that I was angry and let that anger rule me because I had worked hard on a chart i posted after it didn’t post right the first time. So I continued to challenge Mark’s authority and then I got out of hand by trying to bring my cause to the general public which almost caused a big division here. It is hard to find a good unitarian site with so many good people involved and my actions put that in jeopardy.
    First I want to apologize to Mark for putting him in the position to do what he had to do and for challenging his authority here.
    second I would like to apologize to everyone that has been offended by my behavior.
    Third I would like to apologize to Sean for putting this site in jeopardy of division.
    The best I can promise is I will try harder because this site is worth it.

    Robert

    We have decided to reinstate him.

67. on 14 Apr 2010 at 8:56 pm67 robert

    Mark
    Thank you

68. on 14 Apr 2010 at 9:10 pm68 Sean

    Welcome back Robert

69. on 14 Apr 2010 at 9:13 pm69 Doubting Thomas

    Robert
    I second that motion.. Welcome back!!!

70. on 14 Apr 2010 at 9:15 pm70 robert

    Mark
    Thank You
    Sean and Victor
    Thank you

    And I want to Thank everyone for their support and advice. I never knew how many people read this blog but didnt post. I do make a little difference
    Joseph I want to thank you for being willing to go to the mat for me, but this time I was in the wrong, But its nice to know your there.
    Thomas
    I want to Thank you most of all for some very great Advice and showing me whats important.

    Robert

71. on 14 Apr 2010 at 9:17 pm71 Xavier

    robert

    Takes a big man to own up!

72. on 14 Apr 2010 at 10:45 pm72 Victor

    Robert, I was encouraged to read your email. May this blog be to the glory of God.

73. on 15 Apr 2010 at 1:54 am73 Jaco

    1 Pet. 4:8 “Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.”

    I’m glad this is settled.

    Jaco

74. on 15 Apr 2010 at 3:47 am74 Xavier

    Swell, now let’s continue to figure out how to “speak the truth in love”, any bright ideas?

75. on 15 Apr 2010 at 8:22 am75 Joseph

    I’m still not convinced by what happened here. Robert, my discrepancy isn’t just about you, it has to do with how the policy is set up in this blog. Until it changes, I will not be a part of discussion. So I want to reply to your post, on what my thoughts are to your apology.

    To Whom it my concern.

    The day before yesterday I broke the rules for use of this Blog by posting 2 post back to back. I was then confronted by Mark and warned.

    I’ve seen others come into this blog and post many more posts back to back that the moderators simply ignored.

    At this point I challenged Mark’s Authority and posted 2 more posts back to back and forced Mark’s hand. Whether it was my intention to force Mark’s hand is not relevant because my prior challenge to Mark set the stage.

    I personally feel that this is what this is about, the moderators EGO, not about posting two or more posts back to back. I’ve seen the Moderators in the same situation in the heat of the debate with others, and they broke their own rules many times.

    I mean c’mon, posting to many posts in a row? Are you serious that this is good blog policy? Spam is one thing, but limiting discussion? This is a blog discussion format, how about we just make it easier to see more post history so that it is easier to keep up. There has been many times when you have 5 different people commenting on various subjects and next thing you know the link to the thread you were discussing gets kicked out of the top 7 comments. Then you are on a Rabbit chase to try and find the thread you were just discussing.

    After that I was angry and let that anger rule me because I had worked hard on a chart i posted after it didn’t post right the first time.

    You were angry at the fact you lost your hard work. I know the feeling, there has been many times when I tried to post in this blog and it got thrown into spam and I lost the post. It is very frustrating. So then I had to start copying my reply in notepad.

    So I continued to challenge Mark’s authority and then I got out of hand by trying to bring my cause to the general public which almost caused a big division here.

    I have to honestly say without any pun intended that I think the moderators are too oversensitive. A blog should be able to take advice from the ones that make it great (the members).

    It is hard to find a good unitarian site with so many good people involved and my actions put that in jeopardy.

    I agree, this is a good Unitarian site. I enjoy this site for the Unitarian aspects, but I also frequent other sites because of my disagreements on the position of Torah and how it applies to believers.

    First I want to apologize to Mark for putting him in the position to do what he had to do and for challenging his authority here.

    Again, this is about challenging what I consider failed blog policy, so why the apology to Mark? I’ve already gave many examples as to why the top 7 comments is not sufficient and not fair to the blog members.

    second I would like to apologize to everyone that has been offended by my behavior.
    Third I would like to apologize to Sean for putting this site in jeopardy of division.
    The best I can promise is I will try harder because this site is worth it.

    Robert

    Robert, the problem isn’t you at all, it is failed blog policy and the moderators failure to see it. I respect your passion to keep driving on the issues with Mark. I know that he is just as guilty as you in wanting the last word. I’ve read the debates you have been in with each other when it should simply end in agree to disagree, but both of you drive on circling your arguments. Another problem is that the moderator is biased.. If you disagree with the moderator you can’t censor their posts, but they can censor yours.

    So brother, don’t get caught up like you are the bad guy here when the problem runs deeper. Just continue to debate the points as much as you like to get your point across, and enjoy the word of God as you would like to share it with others.

76. on 15 Apr 2010 at 8:29 am76 Xavier

    Joseph

    Robert, the problem isn’t you at all, it is failed blog policy and the moderators failure to see it.

    The man just said he made some mistakes and is apologizing for them. You know better than him?

    I don’t get the purpose of your post. If its to take sides with Robert it ain’t gonna work since he just admitted he was in the wrong.

77. on 15 Apr 2010 at 8:37 am77 Joseph

    Xavier,

    The man just said he made some mistakes and is apologizing for them. You know better than him?

    I don’t get the purpose of your post. If its to take sides with Robert it ain’t gonna work since he just admitted he was in the wrong.

    I just gave examples other than Robert’s issue. My argument is about a failed blog policy that hinders the members from what I consider posting freely. I was singled out by another moderator for the same issue that Robert had with Mark. It seems that the policy only applies to certain times or people. Therefore, I call it like it is, failed blog policy.

78. on 15 Apr 2010 at 9:24 am78 robert

    Joseph
    I agree about the policy but it was my method and my lack of control that I apologized for. the issue with the policy is a legit issue but method was doomed to fail because I pressed the issue instead of bringing it discussion amongst all here. I am very sure if this is approached right it can be agreed upon by all.
    From the emails i receive during this i feel if people will be honest about how they feel about that policy then it can get defined to the liken of all.
    Joseph please reflect on your last post and see if there is a better way to approach this with respect of all involved

79. on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:37 am79 Xavier

    Joseph

    Funny, I can be as stubborn as the next person sometimes & I don’t see it that way. But your entitled to your criticism…anyone agree?

    Maybe we can have some sort of referendum on this.

80. on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:39 am80 Wolfgang

    Hi

    I would say that Joseph has pointed out the real issue(s) to be dealt with !

    Furthermore, it appears to me that Robert was almost “mobbed” into feeling guilty and at fault for something that was necessarily (and it seems, not initially) even his personal problem.

    If moderators are upset with the fact that many posts cause recent posts to not appear in the “most recent” list, they ought to be doing something about that in terms of the technical capabilities of the software they use for running the blog … IF they want to argue “such and such is not Christian”, then they better come up with reasons and figures and facts which are not caused by technical issues.

    Also, since when is challenging the technical capabilities or challenging a moderator’s decision something so non-Christian or sinful that one has to apologize to him/her?

    In addition, here’s a question about how folks (in particular the moderator Mark C.) use this blog: Why is repeating whole website pages and articles on this blog and thereby “eating up blogspace big time” such a good idea? Perhaps a link and a few sentences as to why you are pointing someone to a lenghty article would be more helpful and more EDIFYING (=> cp. Christian principle of communication!) ?

    So, dear moderators … here you have an open challenge caused by your dealings with a blog member and by what has come about since … perhaps an apology from you to the rest of the blog members for not properly examining the matter and not properly dealing with it has become necessary?

    Wondering and somewhat worried about the recent development of things here

    Wolfgang

81. on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:43 am81 Wolfgang

    oops … in my last post I noticed that a word was missing, thus here you have a 2nd post in a row (since editing posts alread sent seems rather difficult or perhaps not possible).
    The below sentence
    

    Furthermore, it appears to me that Robert was almost “mobbed” into feeling guilty and at fault for something that was necessarily (and it seems, not initially) even his personal problem.

    should have read
    “Furthermore, it appears to me that Robert was almost “mobbed” into feeling guilty and at fault for something that was NOT necessarily (and it seems, not even initially) his personal problem.”

82. on 15 Apr 2010 at 3:13 pm82 Joseph

    Robert,

    Joseph please reflect on your last post and see if there is a better way to approach this with respect of all involved

    1. Make a “See more comments…” link at the bottom of the last 7 comments that directs us to a page with links to the last 50 or so comments.

    2. Feature to be able to edit your own post after it has been submitted. (someone else mentioned this)

    3. Don’t limit the number of posts one may make in a row (unless it is of course blatant spam that is irrelevant to the discussion).

    Xavier,

    Funny, I can be as stubborn as the next person sometimes & I don’t see it that way. But your entitled to your criticism…anyone agree?

    Maybe we can have some sort of referendum on this.

    Don’t get me wrong, I know that being a moderator can be a tough time consuming job. I know that Mark has his own webpage and for him to take time to moderate this page means he is very busy, as it is no easy task. I have a webpage of my own so I understand the maintenance and work involved. I have pointed out what I think could help change this blog to be more user friendly. I like this blog, and whether I stay or not won’t have any effect on those who are here, but I have to speak up when I see something I disagree with.

    Wolfgang,

    “Furthermore, it appears to me that Robert was almost “mobbed” into feeling guilty and at fault for something that was NOT necessarily (and it seems, not even initially) his personal problem.”

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it this way. I don’t think there is a “right” or “wrong” here as far as what a Christian should act like in a blog due to a technical issue.

    Perhaps another issue could be in how one chooses to debate. In other words what one may consider unchristian-like may just be the ordinary for another. I’ve been in debates were I have been called VERY VERY ugly things by those who are on all sides of the Christian spectrum. Here in Israel it is normal to have a heated conversation and debate. It doesn’t mean you hate that person you are debating, it just means you are passionate about what you believe.

    I can just imagine Jesus lecturing his fellow Jews with a stern voice, and hear him talk out loud when he was in the heat of debate with the local Rabbis.

83. on 15 Apr 2010 at 3:20 pm83 robert

    Joseph
    Very good ideas and approach.

84. on 15 Apr 2010 at 4:21 pm84 Mark C.

    Wolfgang & Joseph,

    I refer you to Sean’s comment above: “I assure you there was more to the decision than his discourtesy in overloading the recent comments.” It’s not just a matter of more than one post in a row. The guidelines above include:

    What Is Considered Inappropriate…
    * Overwhelming the recent comments list unnecessarily (try to put all of your comments in one entry per post)
    * Hijacking a post repeatedly (i.e. we all do this from time to time but if you do it constantly it really does become onerous)
    * Disrespect towards other commenters (i.e. sarcastic statements intended to belittle, inappropriate labeling of people, overly critical demeanor towards a certain person, etc.)

    How To Disagree Respectfully and Fruitfully…
    * What we should avoid is taking the attitude of “I must proclaim The Truth, and continue to proclaim it whether they want to hear it or not.” If parties agree to disagree on a matter, they should let it go, and not keep bringing it up, especially in other threads that have nothing to do with the matter on which they disagree. If a poster continually proclaims his views with no intention of debating, it is seen as baiting an argument, which detracts from the thread, and it engenders strife as well.

    The specific issues were addressed via email, and Robert has apologized.

85. on 15 Apr 2010 at 4:30 pm85 robert

    Mark
    Dont take this wrong but i think Joseph is adressing an issue that prexisted what went on between me and you. I was in the wrong and that has been established. Joseph is not backing my wrong doing, he is addressing an issue He and seems others want addressed including me. The rule is very unclear and could use some clarification so it can be followed equally by all. Joseph has some very good ideas that seem very logical they could also help this blog run smoother.

86. on 15 Apr 2010 at 5:13 pm86 Mark C.

    Robert,

    I understand. I just wanted to clarify for them that there were other issues involved.

    I think the question of multiple posts needs to be understood in light of the other issues. More than one post on occasion is not a problem. The problem comes when repeated comments are posted pressing an issue and becoming one-sided rather than a dialog. Perhaps this clarification would help.

87. on 15 Apr 2010 at 5:44 pm87 robert

    Mark
    yes that helps me see the mindset behind what you see the rule says But is of no value unless everyone sees it the same way.
    Rules that require interpretation can not be enforced equally.
    The people here need to understand every rule to follow them and then need to be enforced equally.
    A little clarification will go a long way in this subject.

    “The problem comes when repeated comments are posted pressing an issue and becoming one-sided rather than a dialog.”

    Dont take this wrong but i fail to see the logic in this, If we combine all of what we have to say in 2 or more post into 1 post it still contains the same content. Wolfgang had a great point about this from the view point of the people who come here to learn from these discussions.Sometimes post here seem like articles in themselves and take away the effectiveness of the discussion. It gets very hard to address everything in one of these very long post.

88. on 15 Apr 2010 at 7:20 pm88 Sean

    Thank you all for your concern. We are blessed that you choose to remain participants of the KingdomReady blog community. We are using a ready-made wordpress installation and are not at liberty to add a link to “all comments” or increase the number of recent comments using the administrative utility. We like how it was set up and will continue to operate in the same way. (Those who do not like rules of any kind are welcome to start their own forums where they can have no rules whatsoever.)

    The multiple comments rule is obviously not enforced rigidly so as not to be a nuisance to people who are unaware of the annoyance created by overwhelming the recent 7 comments (i.e. new people). The issue with Robert involved his treatment of Mark when Mark reminded him of this rule as he has already clarified. Obviously there is nothing specifically Christian about how many comments one makes on the same thread in a row (as Wolfgang has repeatedly stated), though “other regard” is central to Christian ethics (cf. Phil 2.1-4).

    This blog, alas, is an imperfect place for conversation and though we are always looking for ways to improve it, I do not at present have the time to figure out how to reverse engineer the recent comments add-on.

    As for the notion of “heated debate,” I have a few thoughts. First of all, we must never forget that how we fight is just as important as what we fight for. As Christians, we represent a redeemed community which claims the Messiah has come and brought healing and resurrection to this tired, old world. We cannot allow ourselves to be so intent on making our point that we attack each other. This is unacceptable. You may attack someone’s idea but not their motives, character, or person.

    This blog, in many ways, is an experiment to see if Christians can disagree well together and argue constructively. To me, this notion is exciting and worth fighting for. There have been many critics of this blog over the years who think it is too rowdy, uncontrolled, and generally unproductive. However, I think this is a place for cutting edge theology to be developed, shared, and corrected.

    One question you may find helpful as a diagnostic is to ask yourself: “If an unbeliever who is curious about Christianity came to this site and read only these comments what would he or she think about Christians?” That’s a scary question, right? But, this is happening all the time. People are constantly stopping by this blog while searching the web. They drop in for a few seconds, read a couple of comments, and then decide either to stay or go. If they see people bickering and attacking one another in a mean spirited way what will they think? What will God think if he sees his children at each others’ throats over biblical matters? Furthermore, the biblical injunction is clear as to how we are told to defend our faith–with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3.15). All I ask is that we all continue to make that effort.

    Another good practice to keep in mind is to delay submitting your comment until you have cooled down emotionally. If your hands are shaking, heart is palpitating, forehead is sweating, and mouth is cursing, then you are not in the right place for dialog. Calm down. Write what you want to write in a text document and then come back to it. We’ll still be here. Read over the comment, preferably out loud, trying to imagine how your interlocutor will hear what you say. Will they think you are being sarcastic, trite, or dismissive? If so, then add sufficient explanation so that we can avoid such unintentional tension and hurt.

    We are all in this together and we are all on our individual journeys to discover biblical truth. We are not all going to agree on every point (and if we did…how boring would that be?). With God’s help we can disagree well, in a way that testifies to God, each other, and even unbelievers that God has has redeemed us through his Son.

89. on 15 Apr 2010 at 8:30 pm89 Xavier

    Sean

    Those who do not like rules of any kind are welcome to start their own forums where they can have no rules whatsoever.

    OUCH! Like it or leave it eh?

    You may attack someone’s idea but not their motives, character, or person.

    Or as the great Sebastian Castellion put it…

    “To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man…To protect a doctrine is not the magistrate’s affair (what has the sword to do with doctrine?) but the teacher’s. But it is the magistrate’s affair to protect the teacher, as it is to protect the farmer and the smith, and the physician and others against injury…To seek truth and to utter what one believes to be true can never be a crime. No one must be forced to accept a conviction. Conviction is free…

    [The Apostle] Paul calls sound doctrine that which renders men sound, i.e., endowed with charity, unfeigned faith and a good conscience; but unsound, that which renders them meddlesome, quarrelsome, insolent, ungodly, unholy, profane, murderers of fathers, etc. (1 Tim. 1:5,9), and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

    If an unbeliever who is curious about Christianity came to this site and read only these comments what would he or she think about Christians?” That’s a scary question, right?

    True, we must be an example to all people, especially non-believers. But let’s also keep in mind that no one walks in perfection, and to disagree is healthy as many suggest.

    Also, as non-believers we have many excuses when it comes to the things of God. I know I sure did, we find every little thing under the sun in order for us not to come and do God’s will. Which should be done regardless of how others may behave or disbehave.

    Another good practice to keep in mind is to delay submitting your comment until you have cooled down emotionally. If your hands are shaking, heart is palpitating, forehead is sweating, and mouth is cursing, then you are not in the right place for dialog. Calm down.

    Try talking to family and friends regarding the matter. Or just pound the heck out of something. It works for me.

90. on 15 Apr 2010 at 8:47 pm90 Mark C.

    “The problem comes when repeated comments are posted pressing an issue and becoming one-sided rather than a dialog.”

    Dont take this wrong but i fail to see the logic in this, If we combine all of what we have to say in 2 or more post into 1 post it still contains the same content. Wolfgang had a great point about this from the view point of the people who come here to learn from these discussions.Sometimes post here seem like articles in themselves and take away the effectiveness of the discussion. It gets very hard to address everything in one of these very long post.

    What I generally do is post a comment, and then wait to see what response I get. If there is no response, I will usually just let it go. This is a good way to gauge whether an issue is worth pursuing further.

91. on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:32 pm91 Doubting Thomas

    Sean said, “We are all in this together…We are all not going to agree on every point…With God’s help we can disagree well, in a way that testifies to God, each other, and even unbelievers that God has redeemed us through his Son.”

    I agree completely. It doesn’t matter if it’s considered normal in this world for people to get into heated exchanges and attack each other personally. Jesus said we are to be a light on to the world.

    I don’t believe he meant we should follow the traditions of this world…

92. on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:38 pm92 Xavier

    Doubting

    Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will…

    As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance…

    Do not love the world or anything in the world. If you love the world, love for the Father is not in you.Rom 12.2; 1Pe 1.14; 1Jn 2.15

93. on 15 Apr 2010 at 11:07 pm93 Doubting Thomas

    Xavier
    Thank you for providing the scripture that backed up what I was saying…

94. on 16 Apr 2010 at 1:52 am94 Xavier

    Doubting

    Anytime…great point you made!

95. on 16 Apr 2010 at 6:16 am95 Wolfgang

    Hi Sean,

    you mention
    

    We are using a ready-made wordpress installation and are not at liberty to add a link to “all comments” or increase the number of recent comments using the administrative utility.

    as far as I can tell, this already is most likely the root of the various technical problems … “WordPress” is a BLOG software solution, and NOT a “discussion forum” software solution.
    I have mentioned this long time ago … even mentioned the discussion forum at my own website as an example for a “forum” solution (for those who are interested in such technical matters, I am using “phpbb3″ open source software solution)

    You continued:
    

    (Those who do not like rules of any kind are welcome to start their own forums where they can have no rules whatsoever.)

    I do have a forum at my website and do know a little about managing one with folks of all kinds of denominational and beliefs backgrounds, and things there work very well (currently the English forum is rather quiet, and only few participants have found their way there, while the German forum is quite popular.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

96. on 16 Apr 2010 at 6:41 am96 Joseph

    Sean,

    Thank you all for your concern. We are blessed that you choose to remain participants of the KingdomReady blog community. We are using a ready-made wordpress installation and are not at liberty to add a link to “all comments” or increase the number of recent comments using the administrative utility. We like how it was set up and will continue to operate in the same way. (Those who do not like rules of any kind are welcome to start their own forums where they can have no rules whatsoever.)

    I’m not going to get into the technicalities of WordPress, but this is your blog, and you are its’ originator. In my opinion, I think with some better moderating it could make up for some of the lack of function. So with that, as I highly disagree with the policy and see no room for compromise, I part ways from here.

    If anyone is interested in getting in touch with me, I help moderate a group in facebook, my name is in Hebrew (ג’וסף ג’רדי)…

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=122023807409

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website