On the Freedom of the Will: Part II: Section I (Refuting Arminian Free-Willism)

CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

[Markofhumanfeet]

So. The minute you get out of the gate, do not run up and bite a poster and start sucking wind. Even if it does make you high.

[Jim Robinson]

Now that wasn't nice at all.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping for later reading

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

So. The minute you get out of the gate, do not run up and bite a poster and start sucking wind. Even if it does make you high.

LOL...hey Red read this!

BigMack

[rdb3]

This is saddening. What may come will come, but the GRPL will note that I've seriously slowed down posting on religion threads. The GRPL will also note that I'm not one who is weak on doctrine.

Posting opinions of the Word (substituting said opinion instead of the Word) when the Word Itself is the topic leads to flame wars. And I will admit that substituting opinion for the Word drives me insane. Therefore, to avoid the wars, I lurk. But this is just me.

Work this out, please. Whatever we need to do to make this forum work do, and do quickly. What's that that Paul wrote about them being without judging us?

Think about it.

[Starwind]

Then we're called jackbooted nazi censors. No thanks.

Jim, sincerely, to phrase the problem in terms of censorship is to do yourself an injustice.

If false accusations of censorship cannot be withstood, there is a greater problem.

But removing uncivil and disruptive posters need not be censorship of ideas.

Censorship would be if all material of a certain doctrine or faith were to be forbidden. No one is advocating that.

But it is not censorship to ban posters who violate the forum rules.

As I understand it, those rules are no vulgarity, no baiting or disrupting, no personal attacks, no thread spamming, no thread hijacking or carrying disputes across threads.

Start by banning/suspending those posters who violate forum rules. The Religion/Sidebar Moderator described a new code of conduct for the Religion Forum and said they would use their judgement in enforcing that standard. Let them. Then ban or suspend posters who so violate it in the RM's opinion. No warnings anymore or 'one more last chance', just suspend for a few months and maybe even leave their posts up with the explanation of what the infraction was.

Those who can learn from this will be more civil. Those who can't will be gone.

Other posters will likely emerge to post similar material (i.e. there is no censorship) but they will do so in a more civil fashion and honest debate can emerge. As the dust settles, hopefully a more civil attitude will take hold, and remaining or new disruptors will stand out even more than they do now, and weeding them out will be even more straightforward.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Ain't had so much fun since granny broke her leg and we had to shoot her.

BigMack

[irishtenor]

Good reply.

[CCWoody]

***What's that that Paul wrote about them being without judging us?***

Look, I do agree %100 with that. In practice, I just don't know how you could implement that Biblical plan. Considering that we have Catholics & Protestants combined with open heretics & outright non-Christian persons all together, I'm not sure that you could even make the Corinthians model work on a forum like this.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

How about this one:

My wife left me and took my dog. Boy I sure do miss Rover.

Woody.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I don't know if this could be done, but something that might solve the problem is on the Religion forum make it that you can't push the abuse button anonymously. That way the rest of us will know who is thinned skinned and who isn't, and act accordingly. It might make people stop and think also before pushing it for every little ole thing. Just my two cents:)

Becky

[Gamecock]

Put a disclaimer on the Religious forum that it is not for the faint of heart, then suspend those who email you.

[restornu]

Horses are complicated they have a hard time, They must stand all their life and trouble with their organs!

Any more horse stories?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Ain't had so much fun since granny broke her leg and we had to shoot her.

No doubt to distract her from the pain of the broken leg, hey, works for me, LOL.

[restornu]

Hey Big Mack got a tail or two?

[HarleyD]

Wow, I thought this old chestnut died a long time ago. Imagine my surprise to get drugged back into it. From the looks of things it will be a blessed day when we are all made perfect-THAT'S FOR SURE!!!! :O)

Hope you don't stop posting altogether. Your views are just as important as the rest.

I've been trying to limit myself to no more than 3-5 posts per threads that I'm interested in. I figure if I can't make my point then I'm a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

I'm also TRYING to stay away from doctrinal issues. That tends to be a little more dicey since if you're discussing a piece of scripture your doctrinal understand may give you a different perspective on it.

As for the church of Corinth that someone mentioned, I'm studying 1 Corinthians now. While there was divisions Paul was concerned that they have unity of purpose. This unity of purpose was focused on the very basic of Christian beliefs-the cross of Christ. I believe if we can return to this focus the noise will die down.

[drstevej]

I don't know you. Why are you pinging the GRPL list to this post? Makes no sense.

[Markofhumanfeet]

I saw that and thought it was because you people just aren't getting suspended fast enough so maybe he thought he'd help you out.

[Jim Robinson]

Red Foley aka Wrigley banned.

[Religion Moderator]

Spurgeon would be banned from FR

There is some truth to your tagline, at least to the extent that if Spurgeon made the same kind of comments that some of our present posters make he would eventually be banned. Just as some of you will be sooner or later.

I'm not asking you to drop or change it, however; leave it there so I can remember where you're coming from in future.