At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[heymikey80]

I tend to think that "show me an example" implicitly includes an expectation that you'll explain why example applies.

And I can't read minds; if you can't find a reasonable answer to my challenge, then I can only assume that you're copping out.

An atheist defending his view on a forum not intended for it. Hm.

Then when it gets moved, a cute context-switch occurs. Suddenly newbies are dropped wholesale into a debate forum.

Great effect. Well considered.

 

[KomissarSteve]

An atheist defending his view on a forum not intended for it. Hm.

Sounds like an honest mistake to me. I'm not sure why you assume he had an agenda...

Then when it gets moved, a cute context-switch occurs. Suddenly newbies are dropped wholesale into a debate forum.

Great effect. Well considered.

*shrugs* Again, sounds like a fluke. I don't understand why you seem so sure that there's an agenda behind it.

 

[heymikey80]

Sounds like an honest mistake to me. I'm not sure why you assume he had an agenda...

*shrugs* Again, sounds like a fluke. I don't understand why you seem so sure that there's an agenda behind it.

=smirk= Yeah, and the others that I've noticed clearly don't have an agenda either. Just honest mistakes, all of 'em.

Even when their cohorts tell you you're being baited -- keep riiight on believing.

They can't possibly be expected to read the name of the forum now, can they? With posting guidelines splattered across the whole place?

But still, if this is the way some non-Christians are going behave, it's the best argument yet for denying access to certain forums. If they're going to neglect the posting guidelines, then simple. Prohibit their access to the forums that are sensitive to this kind of neglect.

Frankly, y'know how I found out about ChristianForums the first time?

I was researching someone's username and stumbled onto the fact that they were bombing CF with one-off atheism questions. They were blogging their results.

 

[KomissarSteve]

=smirk= Yeah, and the others that I've noticed clearly don't have an agenda either. Just honest mistakes, all of 'em.

You're sounding rather paranoid here; why don't you show me some more examples so I don't end up thinking that?

But still, if this is the way some non-Christians are going behave, it's the best argument yet for denying access to certain forums. If they're going to neglect the posting guidelines, then simple. Prohibit their access to the forums that are sensitive to this kind of neglect.

I see no reason to believe that this is a problem exclusive to non-Christians - or even more prevalent among them than it is among Christians.

Frankly, y'know how I found out about ChristianForums the first time?

I was researching someone's username and stumbled onto the fact that they were bombing CF with one-off atheism questions. They were blogging their results.

That's too bad that they felt so insecure about their own beliefs that they had to do that, but I still don't see how the presence of non-Christians keeps Christians from experiencing fellowship.

 

[JDIBe]

I too, like the idea of keeping the name and having Christian and Non-Christian sections.

To discuss some issues, there are certain things both parties have to come to the table agreeing on. For example, quoting Scripture to an Atheist usually does no good, because he does not believe in God anyway. Quoting Scripture to a fellow believer however, can carry much weight and can be very useful in resolving a matter.

There are some discussions that are best carried out between Christians and there are some discussions best carried out between Christians and Non-Christians. I feel it's best if forums are structured so they facilitate those discussions.

I like the idea of outreach, but to be honest.....

If I hadn't googled "christian forum" a few months ago, I wouldn't be here today.

 

[sparklecat]

But still, if this is the way some non-Christians are going behave, it's the best argument yet for denying access to certain forums. If they're going to neglect the posting guidelines, then simple. Prohibit their access to the forums that are sensitive to this kind of neglect.

I don't think it's very fair to judge and exclude an entire group based upon the actions of a few.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I too, like the idea of keeping the name and having Christian and Non-Christian sections.

To discuss some issues, there are certain things both parties have to come to the table agreeing on. For example, quoting Scripture to an Atheist usually does no good, because he does not believe in God anyway. Quoting Scripture to a fellow believer however, can carry much weight and can be very useful in resolving a matter.

But how does the presence of that atheist make it not possible for the two believers to quote Scripture to one another? If there is a rule against disrespecting others' beliefs, and it's enforced, then surely the atheist won't post to ridicule quoting Scripture unless he or she genuinely has problems - and that's why God invented the ban option.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't think it's very fair to judge and exclude an entire group based upon the actions of a few.

99 or 1?

In other words, is this from a standpoint of assimilation / separation?

 

[sparklecat]

99 or 1?

In other words, is this from a standpoint of assimilation / separation?

I don't think I quite understand what you're asking; would you mind rephrasing?

 

[heymikey80]

You're sounding rather paranoid here; why don't you show me some more examples so I don't end up thinking that?

Already predicted, Steve. Already predicted.

Ah. Now that I meet one hoop you want me to jump through another. I'm sure it'll just go on & on this way.

I see no reason to believe that this is a problem exclusive to non-Christians - or even more prevalent among them than it is among Christians.

What? Baiting new Christians?

Tell ya what. google up the data you may wish to see. Don't race around in ignorance when the opportunity for data's such a few clicks away.

That's too bad that they felt so insecure about their own beliefs that they had to do that, but I still don't see how the presence of non-Christians keeps Christians from experiencing fellowship.

You say they're insecure about their own beliefs.

Unlikely.

They'll have far more fodder no matter what Erwin does. He's essentially been led into a political trap.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Already predicted, Steve. Already predicted.

I'm sure it has been, but it doesn't change the fact that the ball's kinda in your court on this one...

What? Baiting new Christians?

Tell ya what. google up the data you may wish to see. Don't race around in ignorance when the opportunity for data's such a few clicks away.

It's your responsibility to back up your own argument, not mine. If there is an example of a majority-Christian forum in which new Christians are frequently baited, then it's up to you to find it - not me.

You say they're insecure about their own beliefs.

Unlikely.

They'll have far more fodder no matter what Erwin does. He's essentially been led into a political trap.

Again, I don't see any reason to believe that the non-Christians here have that much of an agenda beyond not being treated as second-class citizens or spiritual predators.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't think I quite understand what you're asking; would you mind rephrasing?

Tell me why a non-Christian is interested in making and originating post to New Christians forum. How might his purpose be served by posting to this forum?

How many declared non-Christians have posted there without an interest in subversion or ridicule?

How many have posted with no interest in such?

There's an express purpose in answering New Christians' questions. Do you expect non-Christians to answer these questions ever in ways that match up to the purpose? Why?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Tell me why a non-Christian is interested in making and originating post to New Christians forum. How might his purpose be served by posting to this forum?

CF isn't exclusively for fostering new Christians, though. Like I said, I and probably everyone else here would be perfectly find with there being a forum for new Christians that's exclusively for Christians.

How many declared non-Christians have posted there without an interest in subversion or ridicule?

I dunno how many have posted there at all. I'm sure a lot of them had honest questions that they were curious about.

I don't think it's very kind to assume they have any sort of sinister motive, personally.

 

[sparklecat]

Tell me why a non-Christian is interested in making and originating post to New Christians forum. How might his purpose be served by posting to this forum?

How many declared non-Christians have posted there without an interest in subversion or ridicule?

How many have posted with no interest in such?

There's an express purpose in answering New Christians' questions. Do you expect non-Christians to answer these questions ever in ways that match up to the purpose? Why?

As KomissarSteve said, I agree that there may be some cases where a subforum would be better closed simply because no non-Christian has a serious reason to want to be able to post there in a helpful manner. I was more addressing the theory behind your post, of shutting out a group because of how some members behave.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm sure it has been, but it doesn't change the fact that the ball's kinda in your court on this one...

It's your responsibility to back up your own argument, not mine. If there is an example of a majority-Christian forum in which new Christians are frequently baited, then it's up to you to find it - not me.

Again, I don't see any reason to believe that the non-Christians here have that much of an agenda beyond not being treated as second-class citizens or spiritual predators.

No. It's not. Your responsibility was to seek out the truth, and yet you expect someone else to force you to drink it in. Sorry, truth doesn't work that way.

You come up with an argument of "It was an innocent mistake", someone posting to "New Christians" forum, saying he's not debating, declaring his dislike for Christian thought, and then ... debating -- in a place declared for New Christians, declared as a non-debate area, having his thread moved to a debate area.

Again, it's a manipulation of the rules, a "can't lose" situation for people who defy the rules.

The forum has a well-known reputation for post-bombing, long before the forum was cranked open to everyone.

And you just won't believe it.

I'm not bothered by your disbelief. Reality doesn't change because you disbelieve.

 

[KomissarSteve]

No. It's not. Your responsibility was to seek out the truth, and yet you expect someone else to force you to drink it in. Sorry, truth doesn't work that way.

Hey, I don't have any vested interest in your argument being proven correct. You do. So I'm sorry to tell you, yes - it is your responsibility, not mine.

You come up with an argument of "It was an innocent mistake", someone posting to "New Christians" forum, saying he's not debating, declaring his dislike for Christian thought, and then ... debating -- in a place declared for New Christians, declared as a non-debate area, having his thread moved to a debate area.

That's right I do, because I don't make a habit of ascribing sinister motives to people who don't appear to have them.

I'm not bothered by your disbelief. Reality doesn't change because you disbelieve.

All I'm asking for is a little evidence to back up what you say; I don't think that's THAT unreasonable of a request, do you?

 

[heymikey80]

As KomissarSteve said, I agree that there may be some cases where a subforum would be better closed simply because no non-Christian has a serious reason to want to be able to post there in a helpful manner. I was more addressing the theory behind your post, of shutting out a group because of how some members behave.

Yet there's no provision for that in option 1. And you're not making the options. The only place for that is in option 2, "only with a less emphasis on outreach."

Your advocacy of option 1 flies in the face of your statements. It's rather similar to a carnivore promising to advocate vegetarianism so as to make slaughterhouses rare. Why'd you believe him? Why would I?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Yet there's no provision for that in option 1. And you're not making the options. The only place for that is in option 2, "only with a less emphasis on outreach."

Yeah, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that option 1 is perfect. If I had my way, I'd definitely add a provision to that.

But again, I'm really not concerned with that as much as I am with the message that all these votes for option 2 sends.

Your advocacy of option 1 flies in the face of your statements. It's rather similar to a carnivore promising to advocate vegetarianism so as to make slaughterhouses rare. Why'd you believe him? Why would I?

I dunno, but I think this language is a bit paranoid and certainly more than a little melodramatic...

 

[sparklecat]

Yet there's no provision for that in option 1. And you're not making the options. The only place for that is in option 2, "only with a less emphasis on outreach."

Your advocacy of option 1 flies in the face of your statements. It's rather similar to a carnivore promising to advocate vegetarianism so as to make slaughterhouses rare. Why'd you believe him? Why would I?

I'm for the hypothetical option 3, myself. I voted for option 1 originally because I came into the thread fairly early on and saw that option 2 was phrased as kicking out the non-Christians.

 

[heymikey80]

Hey, I don't have any vested interest in your argument being proven correct. You do. So I'm sorry to tell you, yes - it is your responsibility, not mine.

No, it's not. You have a vested interest in being right. If you have a vested interest in being right, do the research.

Or don't, I don't care. I have done the research, that's why I'm playing with option 2. I encourage everyone to actually do research.

Theorizing in a vacuum clearly only generates ignorant falsehoods.

That's right I do, because I don't make a habit of ascribing sinister motives to people who don't appear to have them.

And they only appear to have them when you say so. Like when people oppose what you think.

All I'm asking for is a little evidence to back up what you say; I don't think that's THAT unreasonable of a request, do you?

Yes, I do. You come in here with suspicion based on absence of information, and expect someone else to present hard data to change your mind.

That's two different criteria of proof.

You're happy to remain suspicious of one group for the sake of another. Wunderful. Enjoy.

I'll leave it up to one of the banned people to decide whether to respond to you with another exemplar.