Why are there so few christian here?

[juliod]

This is a great forum for debate. The moderators do a good job of keeping things under control without stopping anyone from posting.

Yet the most observable fact here is the reletive lack of christian posters.

I would expect there to be a lot more, given the popularity of amateur apologetics, and the biblical admonition to spread the faith.

I have a theory that is worthy of debate. I say that religion can only exist in protected environments. There must be an authority that prevents heretics and atheists from engaging in debate on equal grounds. Were there is no such authority, atheists carry the day.

I've seen lots of theist web forums. Invariably they use their administrator powers to support the theist side. It eventually becomes impossible to participate as an atheist. I take my writing seriously, and hate it when I feel that the moderator may delete my article because I say something he just can't bear to hear.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Well personally I don't object to that as long as such a forum doesn't try to pass itself off as representing something other than it is. It would be worse if it claimed to be a pan-religious board representing balanced views and then censored anything against Christianity.

Agreed. However, given that set of rules, it is not a place where I would go to find truth. Since, to me, truth can only be arrived at by rigorously testing all claims. This cannot be done by censoring honestly presented points of view that disagree with a pre-defined version of what is TRUE™

[Tilia]

Are there many more?

I don't know.

Then 'one small sample' is unjustified.

[Tilia]

Well personally I don't object to that as long as such a forum doesn't try to pass itself off as representing something other than it is. It would be worse if it claimed to be a pan-religious board representing balanced views and then censored anything against Christianity.

Agreed. However, given that set of rules, it is not a place where I would go to find truth. Since, to me, truth can only be arrived at by rigorously testing all claims. This cannot be done by censoring honestly presented points of view that disagree with a pre-defined version of what is TRUE™

I quite agree; but then closed forums are by their nature for those who have agreed on 'the truth', and who do not want the distraction of having to deal with other views. That seems very legitimate to me.

[McCulloch]

Are there many more?

I don't know.

Then 'one small sample' is unjustified.

Now two samples. Perhaps others can find more or perhaps counter-examples. This kind of data collecting can be time consuming. I have done some, others here can do some more. Then we may have enough data to make some preliminary analyses.

Well personally I don't object to that as long as such a forum doesn't try to pass itself off as representing something other than it is. It would be worse if it claimed to be a pan-religious board representing balanced views and then censored anything against Christianity.

Agreed. However, given that set of rules, it is not a place where I would go to find truth. Since, to me, truth can only be arrived at by rigorously testing all claims. This cannot be done by censoring honestly presented points of view that disagree with a pre-defined version of what is TRUE™

I quite agree; but then closed forums are by their nature for those who have agreed on 'the truth', and who do not want the distraction of having to deal with other views. That seems very legitimate to me.

It is not the legitimacy that is in question. But if they claim to have truth but must protect that truth from being questionned or challenged, I would doubt their claim. Now if all they want to do is to fellowship online with one another, then fine.

[HughDP]

Well personally I don't object to that as long as such a forum doesn't try to pass itself off as representing something other than it is. It would be worse if it claimed to be a pan-religious board representing balanced views and then censored anything against Christianity.

Agreed. However, given that set of rules, it is not a place where I would go to find truth. Since, to me, truth can only be arrived at by rigorously testing all claims. This cannot be done by censoring honestly presented points of view that disagree with a pre-defined version of what is TRUE™

Yes, I quite agree. I wouldn't go there to find the 'truth' either, but I might go there to get an answer to a minor theological point from a Christian perspective. The way I see it there are 2 main reasons why a forum might prohibit counter views to their own:

(1) Because they genuinely don't want to open it to more extensive debate so that they can focus on the theological detail of their faith. If such is the aim then constant, opposing, high-level views from different faiths could deflect the forum from its primary function.

(2) They want to rig it so that their faith looks better than others.


In the case of (1) I'd visit the place if the purpose suited me. In the case of (2) I'd give it a wide berth.

[Tilia]

Are there many more?

I don't know.

Then 'one small sample' is unjustified.

Now two samples.

The prophecy one seems like a very legitimately closed one, to me. This is more than a bit circular, because those that make rules like those you pointed out are obviously not intended to be open.

Well personally I don't object to that as long as such a forum doesn't try to pass itself off as representing something other than it is. It would be worse if it claimed to be a pan-religious board representing balanced views and then censored anything against Christianity.

Agreed. However, given that set of rules, it is not a place where I would go to find truth. Since, to me, truth can only be arrived at by rigorously testing all claims. This cannot be done by censoring honestly presented points of view that disagree with a pre-defined version of what is TRUE™

I quite agree; but then closed forums are by their nature for those who have agreed on 'the truth', and who do not want the distraction of having to deal with other views. That seems very legitimate to me.

It is not the legitimacy that is in question. But if they claim to have truth but must protect that truth from being questionned or challenged, I would doubt their claim.

I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.

Now if all they want to do is to fellowship online with one another, then fine.

What if they want to vigorously debate matters of moment to them? Is that illegitimate?

[HughDP]

I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.

It could happen though. One could run a 'closed' board and then proclaim it represents unbiased truth if they wanted to.

[Tilia]

I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.

It could happen though. One could run a 'closed' board and then proclaim it represents unbiased truth if they wanted to.

Who would be around to hear it?

[Cathar1950]

Tilia wrote:

Who would be around to hear it?

I bet just the ones that want to hear it for what ever reasons.
Built into the biblical system of most of these sites is the us/them problem.
The bible clearly states
2 Cor 10:5

5reasonings bringing down, and every high thing lifted up against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of the Christ,

Romans 15:5-6

5And may the God of the endurance, and of the exhortation, give to you to have the same mind toward one another, according to Christ Jesus;

6that with one accord -- with one mouth -- ye may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Christians shouldn't even be talking to others. They shouldn't be in debates, if they don't listen walk away.

If they start talking to others they will get caught up with this group:
Revelation 17:13

13these have one mind, and their own power and authority to the beast they shall give over;

I feel so Jack VanImpish.

[McCulloch]

What if they want to vigorously debate matters of moment to them? Is that illegitimate?

You cannot vigorously debate anything in a closed forum. Vigorous debate requires a fair and balanced evaluation of all applicable evidence.
If they want a limited debate of matters of moment to them, that's quite legitimate.