Rule 4.2 revision

[aReformedPatriot]

Abortion cannot be promoted. It doing so the person must bring the morality of the issue into play and thus it would not be allowed under the new rules.

Good

Ban it in the other forums now and the truth will have prevailed on a site that proclaims that God = Truth. Be fully consistent all the way around.

 

[Nightson]

Good

Ban it in the other forums now and the truth will have prevailed on a site that proclaims that God = Truth. Be fully consistent all the way around.

If you need to ban the opposing view, you've already lost.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

If you need to ban the opposing view, you've already lost.

Discussing the arguments used by those who propose homosexuality, etc is not a sin is one thing. Allowing people to openly promote by positively debating one of these positions as truth, well, it is a disgrace to a Christian website and to God. Its not defeatest in the least.

 

[Rochir]

Wow, so if someone posts a thread with the title "Gays perverting our youth" and states in the OP "I don't wish to debate this statement" then such inflamatory threads now are openly allowed?

 

[Rochir]

There can't be any pro-choice topics to begin with.

Sorry, but right now, abortion is a legal choice in many western countries/societies and thus has every right and moral ground of being mentioned and defended. Many Christians in Europe and the USA/Canada support abortion under the law. Just because you do not see it as such doesn’t make it a site rule. The revision of 4.2 doesn’t state anywhere that only one side may be stated! So a thread stating “Abortion after rape should be allowed” under the new rule revision is as much allowed as a thread stating the opposite. As long as no discussion takes place, both sides on the topics outlined under rule 4.2. should be within the rules!

Erwin, this revision needs some more input and clarification by you!

 

[*Starlight*]

I think that's a good change... so, for example, someone who's in a homosexual relationship doesn't have to hide it, and no one can tell him/her that it's something bad.

 

[Erwin]

Well then, we agree on something. If the rule is saying that we can discuss these things and not argue for the moral neutrality/righteousness of say abortion but only denouncing it as aberant to the word of God then I retract my above post and give you props Erwin. Is this what this rule is saying Jeff? If it is then I read it mistakenly by thinking that "no debating" equals no discussion of it either positively or negativly. Perhaps that should be made slightly clearer.

Read the rule - you can discuss and you can debate the morality of these things, only in those 3 forums, to make it easier to moderate the site. We have almost 400 forums - if these topics are discussed in all of them, wouldn't you agree it would be too hard for the moderators???

 

[Debi1967]

Sorry, but right now, abortion is a legal choice in many western countries/societies and thus has every right and moral ground of being mentioned and defended. Many Christians in Europe and the USA/Canada support abortion under the law. Just because you do not see it as such doesn’t make it a site rule. The revision of 4.2 doesn’t state anywhere that only one side may be stated! So a thread stating “Abortion after rape should be allowed” under the new rule revision is as much allowed as a thread stating the opposite. As long as no discussion takes place, both sides on the topics outlined under rule 4.2. should be within the rules!

Erwin, this revision needs some more input and clarification by you!

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MANMADE LAWS BUT INSTEAD ABOUT GOD'S LAW!

This is a Christian website

It is not an American webiste
It is not a Canadian website
It is not an United Kingkom website
ect

IOWs it is not a political website run by and governed by the powers of the Laws of man .... It is a webiste run by and governed by the Laws of God ....

Therefore Abortion is not a morality issue at all, it simply is sinful, it is unbiblical, it is against doctrine..... It defies natural Law, that is God's Law.... There should be no reason to argue this issue any further than it already has been and a decision has been made .....

Props for Erwin

 

[Debi1967]

Read the rule - you can discuss and you can debate the morality of these things, only in those 3 forums, to make it easier to moderate the site. We have almost 400 forums - if these topics are discussed in all of them, wouldn't you agree it would be too hard for the moderators???

Although I do agree with you here Erwin that it should be kept to certain forums I also think that fora that it also should be expanded to are the congragtional fora as well so that we may have the ability to privately instruct our own people within such confines about the doctrines of each Faith.... It is very hard to do when we are under the constant attack of those that disagree with us in the other forums to properly instruct our Catechumens (for example, in the Catholic Faith) as to the reasons why it is doctrinal that abortion ( for example ) is not allowed in the Church....

 

[kimber1]

i'm sorry i'd have to disagree. with all due respect, i'm against abortion. but there are those who feel that abortion in cases of rape and such should be allowed because of the heinous crime done against the woman. that heinous crime is also against a command of God. so for the people who feel in these cases it should be allowed and the fact that right now (however many may not like it) it's legal, how does stifling the other viewpoint help in discussion? how can you discuss without having both sides allowable? because unless i'm worng the way this rule seems to be interpreted (in this thread) it would read that only unless you feel abortion is evil can you even talk about it. that's one side of the story.

 

[bumblebee62331]

4.4 You must be 18 years of age or older and female to post replies in the “Women’s Discussion” forum; the only exceptions are the "Men's Shed" and "Teen Girls" sticky threads. You must be 18 years of age or older and male to post replies in the "Men's Corner" forum; the only expections are the "Ladies Bathroom Stall" and "Teen Guys" sticky threads.
​

I have a question. What is this "Ladies Bathroom Stall" and where can I find it?

 

[Debi1967]

i'm sorry i'd have to disagree. with all due respect, i'm against abortion. but there are those who feel that abortion in cases of rape and such should be allowed because of the heinous crime done against the woman. that heinous crime is also against a command of God. so for the people who feel in these cases it should be allowed and the fact that right now (however many may not like it) it's legal, how does stifling the other viewpoint help in discussion? how can you discuss without having both sides allowable? because unless i'm worng the way this rule seems to be interpreted (in this thread) it would read that only unless you feel abortion is evil can you even talk about it. that's one side of the story.

well this is certainly a point but also a point where the Church would say that giving the child up for adoption is more beneficial because then you are not destroying the child but also you are not encumbered with the child that in turn might cause harm to you psychologically as well.... very rare is it that the Church would allow an abortion unless it was so detrimental to the Mother that she would not live, in the process of giving birth....

Life is always put foremost ....but I can agree that this is an agrument of contention.... the point is that it would have to have biblical basis or objective proof as to how it may be done without breaking the confines of doctrine .... I guess that is what they are trying to say....

 

[Debi1967]

I think that's a good change... so, for example, someone who's in a homosexual relationship doesn't have to hide it, and no one can tell him/her that it's something bad.

Umm not exactly true please read the rule again the rule defines what a Scriptural relationtionship is and therefore if one says that they are in a homosexual one then, take for example I, can post Scriptural evidence that supports and refutres that homosexuality is not Biblically backed and therefore not doctrinal.

4.2 You will restrict any posts debating the morality of the following controversial topics to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums (threads and posts related to these topics, which do not debate the morality of these topics, are allowed):
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.
This site uses the scriptural definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. In addition, the debate of the morality of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred. The above topics are also disallowed in profile entries including avatars and signatures as these are not intended to be used in such a manner.

 

[Rochir]

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MANMADE LAWS BUT INSTEAD ABOUT GOD'S LAW!

I disagree. This is a site created by a man - Erwin! We are talking about rules designed for a man-made site!

It is not an American webiste

You are right, however I only see USA values being promoted here! European Christians think differently on many issues than what is being promoted here!

There should be no reason to argue this issue any further than it already has been and a decision has been made .....

Again, i have to disagree! There are millions of Christians world wide who support abortion under certain circumstances. For a site claiming to unite ALL Christians, to exclude them is wrong!

 

[*Starlight*]

Umm not exactly true please read the rule again the rule defines what a Scriptural relationtionship is and therefore if one says that they are in a homosexual one then, take for example I, can post Scriptural evidence that supports and refutres that homosexuality is not Biblically backed and therefore not doctrinal.

4.2 You will restrict any posts debating the morality of the following controversial topics to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums (threads and posts related to these topics, which do not debate the morality of these topics, are allowed):
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.
This site uses the scriptural definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. In addition, the debate of the morality of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred. The above topics are also disallowed in profile entries including avatars and signatures as these are not intended to be used in such a manner.

But you can do it only in debates about homosexuality in specific forums... If someone's in a homosexual relationship, but doesn't post in debates, then saying that his relationship is bad would be against the new rules.

 

[Erwin]

This site itself does not have any stances for or against any of these topics - the site itself is neutral. The moderators may have their own views about things, but they do not necessarily speak for this site. This site is made up of its people - we strive to have it open to as many Christians as possible from as many backgrounds - while maintaing a balance of views between all concern.

 

[Erwin]

I repeat, the rule is to assist in moderation, and not specifically to push a particular point of view.

 

[Debi1967]

I disagree. This is a site created by a man - Erwin! We are talking about rules designed for a man-made site!



You are right, however I only see USA values being promoted here! European Christians think differently on many issues than what is being promoted here!




Again, i have to disagree! There are millions of Christians world wide who support abortion under certain circumstances. For a site claiming to unite ALL Christians, to exclude them is wrong!

When faced with the decision of having to follow God's Law or man's Law who do we follow first? GOD'S .... Sorry Rochir but your argumentation leaves much lacking.

The reason why is because We are all Christians and although we are subject to the Laws of the land, we are still subject to the Laws of God first.... Biblically, morally, (why I even have to say that I do not know) doctrinally, abortion is a vile thing to God as it destroys human life, it destroys HIS CREATION.... Now I do not know about anyone else here, but I do know about me, and I know that above all else I follow God. If in that, I am able to also follow the rules of the land as well, then so be it...

But we are not talking about something that is forced upon us here, we are talking about something that is 99.9% percent of the time elective in nature. Therefore, it would be IMHO, defined as murder, and premeditated at that. In the rare instances that it is not elective most Faiths have shown Mercy to those who have had to undergo such non-elective procedures realizing the nature of it, that it is not something that they would have done ordinarily and that it is by extra-ordinary means that they have had to take such a vital step. Like that of the preservation of their own lives. Even at that it is still up to the person's conscience.

If I told you to take a walk off the bridge to your certain death, because it was the Law, but you had the choice and it was elective for you to do so or not, would you do so? No I do not think so because you know that committing suicide is also against the Lord's plan for us. If you would not voluntarily put your own life in jeopardy and therefore kill yourself then why would you kill another human being? Because it is a moral decision that you can make because of man's law??????? Love they neighbor as thy self, and if we are supposed to treat ourselves as temples then why would you injure another temple of the Lord? What Love does that show and how does that show that we are abiding the commands of God?

 

[A New Dawn]

Question ? In the teen Guys section, some guys struggle with Homosexual feelings, could he post asking for advice under the new rules, as long as it wasn't for debate?

DavyCrockett, for quite a while now, there have been recovery fora that discussed a couple of these rule 4.2 issues (i.e. -- Abortion Recovery) that had no rules to cover them. They should have, technically, been empty because all the posts posted there were in violation of the old rule 4.2. So this allows recovery-type posts, and if someone struggles with that issue (homosexuality), recovery-type discussions can take place there, now. (It might not be the best place for it, but it can happen.)

 

[Debi1967]

But you can do it only in debates about homosexuality in specific forums... If someone's in a homosexual relationship, but doesn't post in debates, then saying that his relationship is bad would be against the new rules.

True and I see where you are coming from .... and agree that it would be easier for you to be able to post without retribution ....

Lovingly In Christ
Debi