Feedback on posting
- Thread starter Out There
- Start date
Re: The Bible is historical and scientific
Assalamu'alaikum,
Bash them? What do you mean bash them? Did I use foul words against Christianity or the Bible? I thought I discussed it intellectually...when someone puts forth a theory, others ought to respond. I'm quite certain my response was damning for Christianity and the Bible, but how could it be considered as "bashing"? . Shouldn't the truth be shared with all? I spent sometime composing that response, if you still refuse to put it back on, could you at least e-mail it to me? I'd very much appreciate it, thank you.
Wassalamu'alaikum
I said:I sent a PM - the faith boards are set up to discuss those faiths, not bash them.
Assalamu'alaikum,
Bash them? What do you mean bash them? Did I use foul words against Christianity or the Bible? I thought I discussed it intellectually...when someone puts forth a theory, others ought to respond. I'm quite certain my response was damning for Christianity and the Bible, but how could it be considered as "bashing"? . Shouldn't the truth be shared with all? I spent sometime composing that response, if you still refuse to put it back on, could you at least e-mail it to me? I'd very much appreciate it, thank you.
Wassalamu'alaikum
Re: The Bible is historical and scientific
If you'd like to take this up via PM I'd be grateful, as this thread is for Christians to discuss the scientific and historical validations (or not) of the Bible, with interested questions from non-Christians invited.
If the "truth" is that a specific religion is flawed and effectively meaningless, then it's not really appropriate for a faith-specific board. This may help: Code of Conduct.Aidyl Nurhadi said:
If you'd like to take this up via PM I'd be grateful, as this thread is for Christians to discuss the scientific and historical validations (or not) of the Bible, with interested questions from non-Christians invited.
Re: The Bible is historical and scientific
Assalamu'alaikum,
Well I appreciate your response and I've just gone through the code of conduct 4 times. Could you help me out? Because I couldn't find anywhere where it says or imply that a member is disallowed from disproving someone else's view points with reasonable proofs and support.
I said:
Assalamu'alaikum,
Well I appreciate your response and I've just gone through the code of conduct 4 times. Could you help me out? Because I couldn't find anywhere where it says or imply that a member is disallowed from disproving someone else's view points with reasonable proofs and support.
Re: The Bible is historical and scientific
I'm going to move the feedback requests to a new thread on the feedback board as its clogging up this thread, then try and answer the points raised.
I'm going to move the feedback requests to a new thread on the feedback board as its clogging up this thread, then try and answer the points raised.
Re: The Bible is historical and scientific
The purpose of your posts on the Christian forum was to dismiss Christianity and its foundations as a religion. These were not appropriate for the Christianity board.
The individual faith boards are provided for persons of that faith - and those outside - to raise interested discussions about that individual faith.
The individual faith boards are *not* for discussions that seek to attack, criticise, diminish, or otherwise argue against the validity of that faith.
There are areas created for critical discussions of faith - not least the Comparative Board - but please note that we don't seek to allow it to be used simply as a platform to attack other people's faith, as much as generate critical discussion.
I appreciate that every forum works in different ways - this is how CR works, and this is how it will continue to work to help preserve and encourage further development of its diversity.
Hope that helps.
Aidyl Nurhadi said:
The purpose of your posts on the Christian forum was to dismiss Christianity and its foundations as a religion. These were not appropriate for the Christianity board.
The individual faith boards are provided for persons of that faith - and those outside - to raise interested discussions about that individual faith.
The individual faith boards are *not* for discussions that seek to attack, criticise, diminish, or otherwise argue against the validity of that faith.
There are areas created for critical discussions of faith - not least the Comparative Board - but please note that we don't seek to allow it to be used simply as a platform to attack other people's faith, as much as generate critical discussion.
I appreciate that every forum works in different ways - this is how CR works, and this is how it will continue to work to help preserve and encourage further development of its diversity.
Hope that helps.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
I find the policy on this very difficult to comprehend. It's hard to know what comprises an "attack" on a particular religion--especially Christianity, because the points of view within that religion can be extremely diverse. For example, how many different takes on the Genesis creation story are there within Christianity proper? A whole lot, from what I can tell, and not all branches of the faith set as doctrine a literal point of view. If one mainline Christian holds the literal six-day point of view and another has a slightly different take, and both express their belief, which one is "bashing" Christianity?
I just posted a quote from J.S. Spong where he explains why he doesn't at all consider the Gospel narratives to be in any objective way historical. Mr. Spong, as I'm sure you know, is an Episcopal Bishop. Does my posting the opinion of an Episcopal Bishop constitute an attack on Christianity? It's all very confusing, and there doesn't seem to be an objective criteria for what is or isn't acceptable. There doesn't seem to be any distinction drawn between criticism and "attacks." Under those circumstances how would a non-(whatever) pose a penetrating question without it being merely rhetorical?
Having made this criticism I'm now wondering if IT is to be considered an "attack" against the CR board at large rather than an honest expression of opinion.
Chris
I just posted a quote from J.S. Spong where he explains why he doesn't at all consider the Gospel narratives to be in any objective way historical. Mr. Spong, as I'm sure you know, is an Episcopal Bishop. Does my posting the opinion of an Episcopal Bishop constitute an attack on Christianity? It's all very confusing, and there doesn't seem to be an objective criteria for what is or isn't acceptable. There doesn't seem to be any distinction drawn between criticism and "attacks." Under those circumstances how would a non-(whatever) pose a penetrating question without it being merely rhetorical?
Having made this criticism I'm now wondering if IT is to be considered an "attack" against the CR board at large rather than an honest expression of opinion.
Chris
I agree it's not always going to be an easy system to get used to - some forums allow a free-for-all in all sections - and some forums insist you sign up declaring your faith, then automatically restrict posters from certain areas on the basis of not being of that faith.
I'd prefer to try and find an inbetween - where we try and keep specific faith boards focused on persons of that faith discussing issues relating to it, and interested questions from persons outside of that faith - and rely on member goodwill to adhere to such a system.
It is and will continue to be a balancing act - there will always be contention about what is suitable for a faith board, as more established faiths tend to be more diverse, and even exclusive to one another.
I'll also try and make matters clearer in the Code of Conduct itself.
And if it's any consolation, I don't think Spong is unsuitable for the Christianity board - but Simon Magus probably would be.
I'd prefer to try and find an inbetween - where we try and keep specific faith boards focused on persons of that faith discussing issues relating to it, and interested questions from persons outside of that faith - and rely on member goodwill to adhere to such a system.
It is and will continue to be a balancing act - there will always be contention about what is suitable for a faith board, as more established faiths tend to be more diverse, and even exclusive to one another.
I'll also try and make matters clearer in the Code of Conduct itself.
And if it's any consolation, I don't think Spong is unsuitable for the Christianity board - but Simon Magus probably would be.