Use of "Christians Only" subject lines.

Festus

DeVore wrote: »

Also, while you have every right not to be abused or insulted on Boards, you dont have the right to say "only people who are X (christian, white, irish etc etc) are allowed post on my thread. The thread is open to all to post so long as they do so civilly.

DeV.

As I understand it it is an unwritten rule agreed to by the Moderators as a way of keeping discussions on track and not having to deal with the less than civil responses that come regularly from some quarters regardless of whether this is by way of ignorance or malice.
Additionally this is a theological question and while some who hold a different theology to Christians may have something to contribute, the Christian ethic is prefered as are Christian focused responses in this thread.

If you have a comment that supports the contention that one can be pro-choice and Christian and have scriptural or other acceptable Christian theological support or vice versa please present it.

Winty

Is it Christian only to allow Christian answers? Would Jesus want that

PDN

OK, since non-Christians don't want Christians to diiscuss this on the Christianity Forum we might as well give up.

DeVore

PDN wrote: »

OK, since non-Christians don't want Christians to diiscuss this on the Christianity Forum we might as well give up.

Really.... come on, are you honestly saying that that is what my post translates to?


DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Really.... come on, are you honestly saying that that is what my post translates to?


DeV.

The point people raised about some non-christians being offensive, abusive or derailing is not a legitimate reason for stopping all non-christians from responding.

Additionally, how will you verify that the person is or isnt Christian? By how much their response agrees with what you want to hear??

That is a massive invitation to "group think". I will contend that I have always been pretty respectful in arguing anything here and have supported this forum from day 1. I'm a non Christian and I object to this tarring. The answer is to moderate or ban those who are persistent troublemakers. Not to preemptively banish the majority of the world, thanks!


I wont be standing for Muslims saying "this is Muslim only territory" on the Islam forum either. This is Boards.ie not Ghetto.ie

DeV.

Winty

Festus wrote: »

the Christian ethic is prefered as are Christian focused responses in this thread.

Boards.ie is for all by all

If you want to ask Christians do they like abortion you could stand outside a church?

FruitLover

PDN wrote: »

OK, since non-Christians don't want Christians to diiscuss this on the Christianity Forum

Is somebody stopping you??

Rev Hellfire

DeVore wrote: »

The point people raised about some non-christians being offensive, abusive or derailing is not a legitimate reason for stopping all non-christians from responding.

My understanding is that the tag doesn't signify that non-Christians can't respond, but rather that responses should be based on Christian doctrine.
I can kind of understand it, it allows those who wish to deal with a subject without having to constantly defend their beliefs (as to the validity of Christianity). Though perhaps using "Christian responses only" would have been a better line to use.

Dave!

meh - as an atheist, I have no problem with having "christian only" threads in this forum. I can appreciate that in order to have a discussion on (say) who God will accept into heaven, it may be necessary to accept the premise that God exists, Jesus is his son, etc. Obviously I think that's all a load of crap, but if boards wants to facilitate such discussion then it's probably reasonable to allow Christians a place to talk about it without having the major unstated premise (God exists) challenged.

philologos

DeVore - Do you not see why Christians might want to talk about their faith with other Christians one to one in some cases that might justify "Christian-Christian" threads?

Personally, there are some threads that I might post for need of help with my faith where I don't want people being smart in, rather spiritual guidance alone. A lot of the skeptics are great to chat with, and I'd have a good back and forth with many and you know this better than I do (Whether you think good or bad of my posts is another).

Over the past few years when I have asked my fellow believers on boards (truly my brothers and sisters in Christ) for help, I've found their advice very helpful indeed.

Hopefully you'll see where I am coming from. Questions such as theological difficulties with a Bible verse, or finding a church, or advice for dealing with bereavement, looking to serve better in church, finding a mission group to join, preparing a Bible Study and so on. It seems a little crude to suggest that it is "Ghetto.ie".

Winty

Dave! wrote: »

meh - as an atheist, I have no problem with having "christian only" threads in this forum.

But but.... Boards.ie is open to all.

If the Christian crew want to discuss the 3 wise men alone without the guidance of atheists they can use one of the many great websites based in the Americian bible belt

DeVore

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

My understanding is that the tag doesn't signify that non-Christians can't respond, but rather that responses should be based on Christian doctrine.
I can kind of understand it, it allows those who wish to deal with a subject without having to constantly defend their beliefs (as to the validity of Christianity). Though perhaps using "Christian responses only" would have been a better line to use.

That predicates my responses as being only from a particular worldview, which forments "group think". If you want validation for a particular opinion, you may find it here but I dont want that to be the only thing you find or *could* find. Those sorts of restrictions are a step in the wrong direction.

I have repeatedly said that I wont tolerate people who come here only to attack and belittle your religion, but equally I'm not interested in supporting a group-think-in. There is middle ground there and the mods are here to assist us all in finding that.

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Jakkass wrote: »

DeVore - Do you not see why Christians might want to talk about their faith with other Christians one to one in some cases that might justify "Christian-Christian" threads?

Personally, there are some threads that I might post for need of help with my faith where I don't want people being smart in, rather spiritual guidance alone. A lot of the skeptics are great to chat with, and I'd have a good back and forth with many and you know this better than I do (Whether you think good or bad of my posts is another).

Over the past few years when I have asked my fellow believers on boards (truly my brothers and sisters in Christ) for help, I've found their advice very helpful indeed.

Hopefully you'll see where I am coming from. Questions such as theological difficulties with a Bible verse, or finding a church, or advice for dealing with bereavement, looking to serve better in church, finding a mission group to join, preparing a Bible Study and so on. It seems a little crude to suggest that it is "Ghetto.ie".

Again Jakass, you equate "non-Christian" with "rude people". Apart from finding that offensive, when its acted upon *pre-emptively*, I find it prejudiced and against what I feel is a better way forward.

By all means, boot people who are rude out of the forum.

DeV.

DeVore

How would we police the idea of "Christians only"? Its unworkable and it really smacks of the sort of lazy thinking, poor laws we have enshrined in our legislature as a country. I oppose the creation of rules/laws which are logically absurd, unworkable and unenforceable in general and see this as being similar.

DeV.

philologos

DeVore you're being horribly disingenuous with my post which is regrettable. I have a lot of respect for many of the atheists I've chatted to on these boards. Unfortunately I've had some negative encounters as well. I'm well able to deal with it now and I like a good challenge.

I find it unfortunate that you can't see the value in some contexts of Christians asking eachother about mission, serving in the church, finding a good church, changing denomination and so on without some smart minded skeptics (as opposed to the eminently reasonable such as robindch, Wicknight, Dades, strobe, Malty T, ColmDawson and many others with whom I have a good and respectful relationship with, and I hope they'd say the same for me) ruining what could be a well needed discussion.

Honestly I find it disappointing to say the least since I've found boards to be hugely beneficial and I've made a lot of connections here some in reality some in the virtual sphere, perhaps to come about in reality at a later date. I think you are being really unfair though. (I know you are admin, but I thought I should at least voice my concern)

There is nothing logically absurd for Christians who need to ask some personal things about their faith without interference. Not every topic is a debate topic.

Rev Hellfire

DeVore wrote: »

I have repeatedly said that I wont tolerate people who come here only to attack and belittle your religion, but equally I'm not interested in supporting a group-think-in. There is middle ground there and the mods are here to assist us all in finding that.

Hee you have me in the wrong camp

I've had my run ins here, but to be honest the mods are very accommodating when it comes to those of us from the A&A visiting. But it makes sense for people to be able to highlight the sort of responses they wish for the question they ask. Those tags are also hardly the norm.

Dave!

DeVore wrote: »

How would we police the idea of "Christians only"? Its unworkable and it really smacks of the sort of lazy thinking, poor laws we have enshrined in our legislature as a country. I oppose the creation of rules/laws which are logically absurd, unworkable and unenforceable in general and see this as being similar.

DeV.

It's worked well enough so far I think... Most of the regular posters in A&A at least are aware of (or can use common sense to determine) who the Christian posters are, and so leave them to it when they want to talk about the zombie Jew. Dunno whether that's out of fear of banning, or just out of common courtesy. I've always seen it as kind of a "gentlemen's agreement" (if you'll forgive the sexist term).

Festus

Dave! wrote: »

It's worked well enough so far I think... Most of the regular posters in A&A at least are aware of (or can use common sense to determine) who the Christian posters are, and so leave them to it when they want to talk about the zombie Jew. Dunno whether that's out of fear of banning, or just out of common courtesy. I've always seen it as kind of a "gentlemen's agreement" (if you'll forgive the sexist term).

Who is the zombie Jew?

Dave!

Festus wrote: »

Who is the zombie Jew?

Jesus

Fanny Cradock

DeVore wrote: »

Again Jakass, you equate "non-Christian" with "rude people". Apart from finding that offensive, when its acted upon *pre-emptively*, I find it prejudiced and against what I feel is a better way forward.

By all means, boot people who are rude out of the forum.

DeV.

I've always understood the "Christian only" tag to have been more of a "Christian minded" response. I possibly should have been more pro-active in encouraging a stricter adherence to a thread prefix (such as "Christian minded" or whatever) that was more inclusive. In other words, I should have made it clear that anyone was allowed to post in such a thread just as long as they stayed within the discussion framework. However, as there really wasn't a problem up until today, I guess it got put by the wayside.

The fact of the matter is that people are allowed to start another discussion on this forum whenever they please if they don't want to remain within the confines of, say, accepting that the Christian God exists and his nature is x, y and z and how we can apply this to our lives, which is pretty much the starting position on a Christian only thread. I have zero problem with a Muslim, Jew, atheist, deist, or whoever joining in the discussion as long as they agree that the discussion has a starting point.

Just to add, while I am willing to review the use of the "Christian only" prefix, I am also mindful that the Christianity forum is a place that should cater toward the needs of Christians - as per the charter .

strobe

In terms of labeling threads "Christian only" I'd agree with Dev, this is an open discussion website and to try and say "you have to be x to post in this thread" is nonsense. But that's usually not done, usually the phrase tends to be "Christian spirited only" which I don't really have a problem with. Certain threads can only really stay on topic if certain premises are accepted.

For example if someone was to ask "what did Jesus mean in John 6:27?" it would completely derail the thread to have people coming on saying "Jesus never existed".

The phrase "a community of communities" get's used to describe boards, and there is a certain amount of autonomy granted to individual forums, in how they devise their own charters and enforce them etc, which is a good thing. So thinking about it like that, this is primarily a community of Christians which welcomes non-Christians to post. I think that is fair enough.

It's not just this forum, the hunting forum charter contains the line "This is a hunting forum so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts; you are going to be offended." That's more than a thread being quantified as just for a certain flavour of responses, it is a complete banning of the expression of dissenting views in the forum en masse. There are other examples site wide.

The paranormal forum has a "Skeptics Corner" to allow people posting in the main forum to do so relatively free from ridicule for example.

This is probably a larger issue with site wide implications rather than just pertaining to certain threads in this forum. Maybe a feedback thread is needed if there is to be some shift in official policy on this kind of thing Dev?

Fanny Cradock

Dave! wrote: »

Jesus

I assume you have forgotten where you are. Because otherwise I can only assume that this is deliberate childish provocation, which really helps no one. So while you are reviewing the charter, I would suggest that you also take the time to review the difference between resurrection and the "undead".

Festus

Dave! wrote: »

Jesus

That would be why we sometimes prefer Christian responses.

Suggest you take a similar line and go to the Islamic forum. Perhaps post some excerpts from the Satanic Verses or post some cartoons of the Muhammad ibn Abdullah and see how you get on .

Fanny Cradock

OK, let's just ignore the remark and get back on topic.

Morbert

DeVore et al: I've been posting on this forum for quite a while now and the "Christian only tag" works very well. It doesn't exclude non-Christians, but rather keeps the conversation focused.

If you start a thread on boards requesting the best recipe for a plum pudding, you shouldn't have to expect responses telling you apple pie is nicer.

Manach

As per Morbert, The Christian tag seems to me is a way to focus on the same conceptual framework.

Marcus.Aurelius

As an atheist, I don't really mind the threads that are labelled "Christian only" or any other variation on that theme, so long as they do not proliferate the forum and become the norm.

There might be some benefit to considering a private sub-forum where regular (Christian) posters could talk back and forth on deeper topics. This would also need a lot of regulation, otherwise the main forum would go quiet. Hmmm, just rattling ideas around today.

Fanny Cradock

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

There might be some benefit to considering a private sub-forum where regular (Christian) posters could talk back and forth on deeper topics. This would also need a lot of regulation, otherwise the main forum would go quiet. Hmmm, just rattling ideas around today.

It has already been considered and rejected after much discussion. But thanks for the suggestion.

Rev Hellfire

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

As an atheist, I don't really mind the threads that are labelled "Christian only" or any other variation on that theme, so long as they do not proliferate the forum and become the norm.

There might be some benefit to considering a private sub-forum where regular (Christian) posters could talk back and forth on deeper topics. This would also need a lot of regulation, otherwise the main forum would go quiet. Hmmm, just rattling ideas around today.

Its perhaps worth considering that there is a athiest and agnostics forum where people can debate the non-existence of god and godettes.
Conversation isn't getting stifled in any shape by occasionally restricting topics in the Christanity forum to the actual subject matter on hand.

tbh it all smacks of people getting offended for the sake of being offended.

Festus

I don't know what the coffuffle is about or why this thread was started.

The original thread title was " Was Jesus Christ pro-choice? (Christian answers only)"

There was no mention of non christians not allowed and that was not the intention. The request was for "Christian answers". Anyone regardless of denomination can give a Christian answer.
Even a God hating atheist can pretend to be Christian once in a while and God knows many in the acting world do so regularly and get very well paid for it.

The opening post contains the request "
I invite those who call themselves Christian to present the theological case that Jesus Christ is pro-choice and pro- abortion."

That does not preclude or exclude those who are not Christian from making an on-topic comment.

However it would be very difficult for a non Christian to answer for a Christian who holds this particular view.

Perhaps I should have said "I invite responses from Christian pro-choicers because I really don't know where you are coming from and want an understandable theological answer."


Can someone please tell me how you can get "Christians only" from "Christian answers only"?

Take this for example.

What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in God?

anti-semetic answer: A Jew.

Christian answer: an atheist

Jewish answer: Woody Allen

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

strobe

Festus wrote: »

I don't know what the coffuffle is about or why this thread was started.

The original thread title was " Was Jesus Christ pro-choice? (Christian answers only)"

There was no mention of non christians not allowed and that was not the intention. The request was for "Christian answers". Anyone regardless of denomination can give a Christian answer.
Even a God hating atheist can pretend to be Christian once in a while and God knows many in the acting world do so regularly and get very well paid for it.

The opening post contains the request "
I invite those who call themselves Christian to present the theological case that Jesus Christ is pro-choice and pro- abortion."

That does not preclude or exclude those who are not Christian from making an on-topic comment.

However it would be very difficult for a non Christian to answer for a Christian who holds this particular view.

Perhaps I should have said "I invite responses from Christian pro-choicers because I really don't know where you are coming from and want an understandable theological answer."


Can someone please tell me how you can get "Christians only" from "Christian answers only"?

Take this for example.

What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in God?

anti-semetic answer: A Jew.

Christian answer: an atheist

Jewish answer: Woody Allen

I can completely see how someone would get "Christians only" from "Christian answers only" and if I am honest, despite what you say in the quoted post, I presumed that was exactly what you meant. I could be completely wrong of course but is it really that much of a stretch to see how others could draw the same conclusions I did?

Don't have a clue what the joke at the end is attempting to imply.

I guess if the subject line thing is going to continue, it should be clarified what the subject line should be and what exactly it means. Add that fukker to the charter to avoid confusion.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not really sure what the next step is in this debate. If it's simply a case of Dev interjecting as an ordinary user - well, I suggest that the tag remains but possibly in modified form where its function is explained thereby becoming clearer for all. If, however, Dev is speaking in his capacity as an Admin then it's over to a higher power to decide.

Festus

strobe wrote: »

Don't have a clue what the joke at the end is attempting to imply.

It was by way of example showing that there is always more than one way of answering a question.

As for presuming what I meant I presume you are able to attack my post without making presumptions about what I meant.

strobe

Festus wrote: »

As for presuming what I meant I presume you are able to attack my post without making presumptions about what I meant.

Presumably I'd certainly presume so.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not really sure what the next step is in this debate. If it's simply a case of Dev interjecting as an ordinary user - well, I suggest that the tag remains but possibly in modified form where its function is explained thereby becoming clearer for all. If, however, Dev is speaking in his capacity as an Admin then it's over to a higher power to decide.

As this thread appears to be the source of the issue should this discussion not be merged here

Fanny Cradock

I don't see the significance. The Christian only thing has been around for quite a while.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see the significance. The Christian only thing has been around for quite a while.

It was discussed quite heavily in that thread. I see it as a better place for it, particulary if someone has a contention regarding it.

Fanny Cradock

You linked to a thread on a different forum which dealt with a different subject matter. I can't see the relevance to this discussion.

lmaopml

I don't understand having a problem with 'Christian minded responses please' tags on a thread?.....

In all fairness, it's not like anybody can't start up a thread of their own as a follow on to discuss something that troubles them on one of those threads?

We're not running out of thread starting space I hope.....Most of us interact on other forums on boards just fine too, and follow the rules.

The mods are 'moderating' according to the charter just like any other forum that falls under any other sub heading with it's own charter...

I really hope that this 'tag' is not going to be outlawed or deemed inappropriate...the forum is only a teensy weensy bit of internet space on the vastness of boards to start threads on, and it's got a decent amount of regular posters...of every variety, both religious ( and not necessarily Christian ) and non religious - we're doing reasonably ok so far..?? C'mon DeV

JimiTime

As the person who initially pushed for this back in the day (I think), I think its ridiculous to seek to quash it.

Look about the forum, its certainly not abused. Also, if anyone contentiously starts a thread with it (Like to slate atheists or something), the mods would be on them in seconds flat.

Its a simple and effective system to keep out unwelcome posts. I would go further than this idea that its simply Christian 'spirited' responses also. Sometimes I put it in a title to deter distracting opinion, and to appeal to those who share a common ground. Other times I may be seeking Christian wisdom or knowledge specifically, or seeking specifically Christian opinion. i make no apologies for that. IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The spirit of the Christian only thing, is not to incite or to quash dissenting opinion as a whole. It is to focus certain discussions. Most people realise that there are dissenting voices, but sometimes they wish to focus the discussion using a shared common ground.

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

I would go further than this idea that its simply Christian 'spirited' responses also.

This is where I would object. In my capacity as a boards.ie member, for whatever that is worth. :rolleyes: I object to the fact that you would seek to exclude me from a discussion on this site due strictly to the fact that I am not a Christian. This isn't the first time you have expressed such an opinion either. I find it more than a little unsettling to be honest Jimi. The concerns you have put forward in relation to 'secularism' don't seem to be consistent when you are standing on the other side of the fence man.

Morbert

strobe wrote: »

This is where I would object. In my capacity as a boards.ie member, for whatever that is worth. :rolleyes: I object to the fact that you would seek to exclude me from a discussion on this site due strictly to the fact that I am not a Christian. This isn't the first time you have expressed such an opinion either. I find it more than a little unsettling to be honest Jimi. The concerns you have put forward in relation to 'secularism' don't seem to be consistent when you are standing on the other side of the fence man.

"Christian spirited responses" does not exclude non-Christians. It simply makes it clear that the discussion will operate under the assumption that the fundamental tenets of Christianity are true. If a poster tenders an argument against these assumptions then, whether they are right or wrong, it is an off-topic post. It's really no big deal.

strobe

Morbert wrote: »

"Christian spirited responses" does not exclude non-Christians. It simply makes it clear that the discussion will operate under the assumption that the fundamental tenets of Christianity are true. If a poster tenders an argument against these assumptions then, whether they are right or wrong, it is an off-topic post. It's really no big deal.

I agree 100% and defended that stance, in a quite lengthy (by my standards) and well thought out (if I do say so myself) post up there ^^ (see here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69643170&postcount=21 ). I do not believe that is what Jimi means however.

Seaneh

Here's the thing.
If I want to start a thread about a particular piece of scripture and what I means in regards to how we should live our lives and asking other Christians if they could perhaps explain it for me, get a few different view points from different posters etc.
The last thing I want is people saying "it means **** all, sure it's all a load of ****e, there is no god, you're all deluded, blah blah blah". It adds nothing to the conversation and ends up derailing the intention of the post. In these cases something like "Christian spirited responses please" is a good idea and needed.

If I go to the motors forum and post a question like "problem with 97 golf gti" and ask if anyone else owns a 97 gti and has had the same problem and if so could they give me some insight, the last thing I'd want or expect is some retard posting "your car is crap, buy a XXXXX".

Festus

That IS a crap car but not nearly as crap as a Renault

I'm kidding... wha?

Morbert

strobe wrote: »

I agree 100% and defended that stance, in a quite lengthy (by my standards) and well thought out (if I do say so myself) post up there ^^ (see here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69643170&postcount=21 ). I do not believe that is what Jimi means however.

Ah, I misread JimiTime's post. My bad.

monosharp

Dave! wrote: »

Jesus

If I (or anyone else that's not a mod) said that I'd be banned quicker than you could say it. :P

This forum is pretty much a protected forum with special status above all others already. That is already too much, they don't need 'christian-only' threads.

On the use of 'Christian only' threads. Next thing there will be 'muslim only' threads, 'Fianna fail/Sinn Fein only threads' in politics, 'only people who agree with me' threads in after hours. :rolleyes:

We all know the reason why they want these tags here. They don't want to hear anyone disagree with them, they want to hear people of the same mindset.

Victor

This reminds me of the debate over a sign in a Dublin hairdressers shop along the lines of "blacks only". While on the face of it, it is discrimination against others, the reality is that the shop focused on hairstyles popular with black people, anyone could attend.

Of note however, people's hair type varies and particular differences exist across races. So a hairdresser adept at cutting one type of hair might not be quite so adept at cutting the hair of someone who has a very different hair type.

So, to the Christianity forum. Surely, all thread need to be within the context of it being the Christianity forum and that "Christian only" or "Christian orientated only"-type labels are unnecessary? If someone behaves inappropriately, they can be reprimanded for being off-topic or offensive?

philologos

Seaneh wrote: »

Here's the thing.
If I want to start a thread about a particular piece of scripture and what I means in regards to how we should live our lives and asking other Christians if they could perhaps explain it for me, get a few different view points from different posters etc.
The last thing I want is people saying "it means **** all, sure it's all a load of ****e, there is no god, you're all deluded, blah blah blah". It adds nothing to the conversation and ends up derailing the intention of the post. In these cases something like "Christian spirited responses please" is a good idea and needed.

If I go to the motors forum and post a question like "problem with 97 golf gti" and ask if anyone else owns a 97 gti and has had the same problem and if so could they give me some insight, the last thing I'd want or expect is some retard posting "your car is crap, buy a XXXXX".

This is a perfect description of why this is needed.

28064212

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a perfect description of why this is needed.

Isn't the last paragraph a perfect example of why it's not needed? Motors doesn't have "Pro-Golf posters only" subject lines

If someone comes onto the Christianity forum spouting "It's all ****e, doesn't exist, blah blah blah" I'd expect them to be banned, whether the thread asked for Christian responses or not. It's explicitly banned by the charter.

I don't see what a "Christian responses only" line adds to the forum that isn't either covered by the charter or specifically to stifle viewpoints that the thread starter doesn't agree with