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
Why are there so few christian here?
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #41
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™HughDP wrote: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.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #43
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 wrote: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™HughDP wrote: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.
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #44
Tilia wrote:Are there many more?
McCulloch wrote:I don't know.
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.Tilia wrote:Then 'one small sample' is unjustified.
HughDP wrote: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.
McCulloch wrote: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™
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.Tilia wrote: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.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #45
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:McCulloch wrote: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™HughDP wrote: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.
(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.
Post #46
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.McCulloch wrote:Tilia wrote:Are there many more?McCulloch wrote:I don't know.Now two samples.Tilia wrote:Then 'one small sample' is unjustified.
HughDP wrote: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.
McCulloch wrote: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 wrote: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.
I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.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.
What if they want to vigorously debate matters of moment to them? Is that illegitimate?Now if all they want to do is to fellowship online with one another, then fine.
Post #47
It could happen though. One could run a 'closed' board and then proclaim it represents unbiased truth if they wanted to.Tilia wrote:I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.
Post #48
Who would be around to hear it?HughDP wrote:It could happen though. One could run a 'closed' board and then proclaim it represents unbiased truth if they wanted to.Tilia wrote:I'm puzzled as to which persons they could they claim it to, as the system is effectively closed.
- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #49
Tilia wrote:
Built into the biblical system of most of these sites is the us/them problem.
The bible clearly states
2 Cor 10:5
If they start talking to others they will get caught up with this group:
Revelation 17:13
I bet just the ones that want to hear it for what ever reasons.Who would be around to hear it?
Built into the biblical system of most of these sites is the us/them problem.
The bible clearly states
2 Cor 10:5
Romans 15:5-65reasonings 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,
Christians shouldn't even be talking to others. They shouldn't be in debates, if they don't listen walk away.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;
If they start talking to others they will get caught up with this group:
Revelation 17:13
I feel so Jack VanImpish.13these have one mind, and their own power and authority to the beast they shall give over;
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #50
You cannot vigorously debate anything in a closed forum. Vigorous debate requires a fair and balanced evaluation of all applicable evidence.Tilia wrote:What if they want to vigorously debate matters of moment to them? Is that illegitimate?
If they want a limited debate of matters of moment to them, that's quite legitimate.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John