Faith Based Threads in Celestial Forum

[_KimberlyAnn]

So let me get this straight Liz, someone creates a "faith-based" thread and I want to participate via shooting down a central point of the posit forwrded by the Jesus/mohammed/elohim freak. At that point I am not allowed to challenge new ideas.

Allow me to clarify: Opposing views are just as allowable now as they ever were. The only difference is that a thread starter may now set down certain parameters for his/her own thread.

In other words, if someone posts his or her testimony of Christ or the divine calling of Joseph Smith, you can't challenge that testimony in the thread itself. You are perfectly free to challenge everything he or she said, but you'll merely have to start a new thread about it in the Terrestrial Forum is all. Title it something like, "Challenge to ___'s testimony in the Celestial Forum" or something like that.

So you're still free to say whatever you want. Thread starters in the Celestial Forum are simply allowed a little more leeway to determine the venue is all.

This clarification doesn't make things any better. The new rule needs to go.

KA

[_Mercury]

So let me get this straight Liz, someone creates a "faith-based" thread and I want to participate via shooting down a central point of the posit forwrded by the Jesus/mohammed/elohim freak. At that point I am not allowed to challenge new ideas.

Allow me to clarify: Opposing views are just as allowable now as they ever were. The only difference is that a thread starter may now set down certain parameters for his/her own thread.

In other words, if someone posts his or her testimony of Christ or the divine calling of Joseph Smith, you can't challenge that testimony in the thread itself. You are perfectly free to challenge everything he or she said, but you'll merely have to start a new thread about it in the Terrestrial Forum is all. Title it something like, "Challenge to ___'s testimony in the Celestial Forum" or something like that.

So you're still free to say whatever you want. Thread starters in the Celestial Forum are simply allowed a little more leeway to determine the venue is all.

Shades, I think we need to examine if this was sparked by an isolated incident or a wider problem. Kneejerk reactions to the on-again off-again poster Marg does not, in my mind justify such modification to the rules.

[_Scottie]

So let me get this straight Liz, someone creates a "faith-based" thread and I want to participate via shooting down a central point of the posit forwrded by the Jesus/mohammed/elohim freak. At that point I am not allowed to challenge new ideas. BAD. very bad.

Shame on those who support this rule and shame on the dips***s who proposed it in the first place.

No, Merc, you're missing the point.

Say someone creates a thread in the Celestial about whether the man who defended Jesus on the cross will be saved in Heaven, even in his sins.

For the rest of this thread, the assumption that the Bible is true, God exists and there is a Heaven are not up for debate. These are the parameters laid down by the OP.

Feel free to discuss what a sin is, how repentance works, does Christ have that much power to forgive.

We just don't want the thread to derail into a "does God even exist" or "the Bible is just a bunch of myths" thread every time an issue is raised. If you feel you must question whether God exists, or the Bible is true start a new thread in the Terrestrial.

Make sense?

[_KimberlyAnn]

So let me get this straight Liz, someone creates a "faith-based" thread and I want to participate via shooting down a central point of the posit forwrded by the Jesus/mohammed/elohim freak. At that point I am not allowed to challenge new ideas. BAD. very bad.

Shame on those who support this rule and shame on the dips***s who proposed it in the first place.

No, Merc, you're missing the point.

Say someone creates a thread in the Celestial about whether the man who defended Jesus on the cross will be saved in Heaven, even in his sins.

For the rest of this thread, the assumption that the Bible is true, God exists and there is a Heaven are not up for debate. These are the parameters laid down by the OP.

Feel free to discuss what a sin is, how repentance works, does Christ have that much power to forgive.

We just don't want the thread to derail into a "does God even exist" or "the Bible is just a bunch of myths" thread every time an issue is raised. If you feel you must question whether God exists, or the Bible is true start a new thread in the Terrestrial.

Make sense?

You know, if the posts don't cross the boundaries of propriety in the Celestial forum, they should be allowed to stay. It's fairly simple to ignore comments. Just don't respond to them! Preventing folks from making them in the first place is unnecessary.

Also, you're understating the reach of the new rule. Liz originally said that, in the case of a "Faith Based" thread, the OP's assertions would be accepted as true. Those assertions cannot be questioned in that thread. That is far more reaching that just asking that folks not question the existence of God. It's out and out censorship imposed by the originator of a thread.


KA

[_Mercury]

So let me get this straight Liz, someone creates a "faith-based" thread and I want to participate via shooting down a central point of the posit forwrded by the Jesus/mohammed/elohim freak. At that point I am not allowed to challenge new ideas. BAD. very bad.

Shame on those who support this rule and shame on the dips***s who proposed it in the first place.

No, Merc, you're missing the point.

Say someone creates a thread in the Celestial about whether the man who defended Jesus on the cross will be saved in Heaven, even in his sins.

For the rest of this thread, the assumption that the Bible is true, God exists and there is a Heaven are not up for debate. These are the parameters laid down by the OP.

Feel free to discuss what a sin is, how repentance works, does Christ have that much power to forgive.

We just don't want the thread to derail into a "does God even exist" or "the Bible is just a bunch of myths" thread every time an issue is raised. If you feel you must question whether God exists, or the Bible is true start a new thread in the Terrestrial.

Make sense?

I get what the purpose of the rule s but I disagree with the result it creates. In my view the ability to challenge basic assumptions needs to stand. If the poster does not want to engage those who challenge others its up to them. Self regulation is always a better alternative than forced regulation. It creates an echo chamber in which the validity of, say homophobia stands unless challenged within the rules of "faith".

It is my impression that it limits debate and encourages the implementation of faith as an automatic qualifier to a posit.

[_Yoda]

It is my impression that it limits debate and encourages the implementation of faith as an automatic qualifier to a posit.

How so? Keep in mind that it is the thread starter's responsibility to create the perimeters at the onslaught of the thread. They can't claim "faith based" foul half-way through. ;)

And, if you as a poster, see "faith based" in the title of a thread, you know what to expect. Read it or don't read it. Participate, or don't participate.

I'm still confused as to why folks find this limiting.

[_Scottie]

I get what the purpose of the rule s but I disagree with the result it creates. In my view the ability to challenge basic assumptions needs to stand. If the poster does not want to engage those who challenge others its up to them. Self regulation is always a better alternative than forced regulation. It creates an echo chamber in which the validity of, say homophobia stands unless challenged within the rules of "faith".

It is my impression that it limits debate and encourages the implementation of faith as an automatic qualifier to a posit.

I'll ask again. Say I start a thread where I wonder if the man on the cross next to Jesus will be saved.

I REALLY don't want to start arguing if God exists. I don't want to argue if the Bible is true. I don't want to argue if Christ is the Messiah. For the purposes of THIS thread, I would like those assumptions to be fact.

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

[_Mercury]

It is my impression that it limits debate and encourages the implementation of faith as an automatic qualifier to a posit.

How so? Keep in mind that it is the thread starter's responsibility to create the perimeters at the onslaught of the thread. They can't claim "faith based" foul half-way through. ;)

And, if you as a poster, see "faith based" in the title of a thread, you know what to expect. Read it or don't read it. Participate, or don't participate.

I'm still confused as to why folks find this limiting.

Because it limits the threads I can participate in.

[_Yoda]

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

Agreed.

[_Mercury]

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

Agreed.

It IS lazy. But even a well constructed argument shooting down a faith-based approach would cause the comment to come under attack, enabled by the new rule.