Check your hatred at the door before posting here.........

[Shulamite]

Well, said, brother. The root of the debate is "free will", which calvinists will not agree with and yet Arminians hold to unswervingly.

It's the same argument over and over again. But, it's true.... regardless of where the Lord has each of us in our understanding of His word, we need to deal with one another how the Lord commanded us... not according to the flesh, which is prone to argue and strive.

The root issue is always FREE WILL... VS... the total Sovereignty of God.
With the grace given to me, I will always stand on God's Total Sovereignty.... no waivering. Free will and Sovreignty mix about as well as "oil and water"... and I'm passionate in expressing my feeling about this, but I have prayed that the Lord will give me a more calm and gentle spirit as I post here and to treat my brothers and sisters how I would want to be treated. We should all be able to share here without attacking one another. We are part of ONE BODY..., Paul did not shy away from preaching with passion and he never waivered from this, but he did so "speaking the truth in love" so that we all may grow into the Head, Who is Christ.

 

[Pinkman]

It's already been tried. But feel free to reinvent the wheel,...

and living at peace with one another.

Seems the soteriology board is a bit redundant.

Do all non-calvinists go with total free will ?

 

[nobdysfool]

No- most definitely not

The majority do, in some fashion. Some are more adamant about it than others.

And, there are some who are contrary, just to be contrary.

 

[Hentenza]

Guys,

I am going to politely and nicely ask all of you to report flaming posts instead of replying to them with equally flaming retorts. When this happens then both posters will be actioned for flaming. Please lets be a light for Christ.

Thanks.

 

[Tzaousios]

Guys,

I am going to politely and nicely ask all of you to report flaming posts instead of replying to them with equally flaming retorts. When this happens then both posters will be actioned for flaming. Please lets be a light for Christ.

Thanks.

Sure, but how does the Staff plan on distinguishing between "flaming retorts" and merely replying to what might be construed as "flaming posts?" If you ask me, it has been very difficult as of late to understand how they do that.

 

[Hentenza]

Sure, but how does the Staff plan on distinguishing between "flaming retorts" and merely replying to what might be construed as "flaming posts?" If you ask me, it has been very difficult as of late to understand how they do that.

Is relatively simple. If the reply is a flame then it is also a violation even if the person was goaded.

 

[heymikey80]

Guys,

I am going to politely and nicely ask all of you to report flaming posts instead of replying to them with equally flaming retorts. When this happens then both posters will be actioned for flaming. Please lets be a light for Christ.

Thanks.

That inevitably generates the basic problem of our understanding of a flame, versus theirs.

No one is enforcing, "Address the post and not the poster" regulation. Without this stipulation to "address the post and not the poster" we have people who aren't involved, deciding how people who are involved in the discussion should feel about allegations about them -- allegations that are often false and deprecatory. That was the reason for the rule. The problem's resurfaced.

So I'd suggest that it be considered for removal, pointblank. It's quite clear no one is enforcing it any more. Shove whatever fits under the "flaming" section and leave it at that.

As for the real problem that rule was preventing, without enforcement I don't have an answer.

 

[cygnusx1]

just got back after a break from the board and another thread close d ... it's happening far too much lately .

good books anyone ? ;

btw , just came down from my loft with a very old John Gill commentary (it's in velum) 3 very large vols on the N.T , and I am guessing it's a really early edition for you bookworms , let me check ,

vol 1 ; MDCC XLVI
vol 2 ; MDCC XLVII
vol 3 ; MDCC XLVIII

These must be first editions ....

An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols., 1746–8)

not as glamorous as later sets ;

John Gill « Miscellanies.

 

[nobdysfool]

Guys,

I am going to politely and nicely ask all of you to report flaming posts instead of replying to them with equally flaming retorts. When this happens then both posters will be actioned for flaming. Please lets be a light for Christ.

Thanks.

Brother, that is a reasonable request, and one that I would very much like to comply with, and will endeavor to do so. However, please realize that the report load may go up, if things keep up the way they have been. It would be a mistake to view the ones reporting as the source of the problem, if they are complying with your request, rather than attempting to deal with things in-thread as we have been doing, partly based on remarks by some mods more or less complaining about the report volume. You can't have it both ways.

If someone were to really study it out, I think it can be seen that Calvinists very rarely, if ever, start the flaming. Flaming as in making remarks about certain posters, or overly egregious claims about Calvinism in general. No one is forced to agree with Calvinism here, but one can disagree without making all sorts of false statements and claims about Calvinism that are prove-ably not true. Most Calvinists are more apt to try to explain things rather than just start shooting from the hip at those who disagree with them, but the same doesn't seem to be able to be said for their opponents. We're all human, and if we're feeling attacked, at some point, we will start shooting in reply. Unfortunate, but true. When it gets to that level, no one can claim the high ground, and act as though they are lily-white and blameless. Bottom line is, if I'm shot at, I will in all likelihood shoot back. It's called self-defense.

I try not to mash the report button unless it is over-the-top obvious, so obvious that no mod could possibly ignore or fail to action the report, unless they don't want to be a mod anymore. Since you are asking us to report more, be prepared for the report count to go up, and if your mods whine about it, (I hate to be so blunt), tell them to suck it up and do their job. And part of that job should be discerning where the real problem lies, what the root cause is, and deal with that, rather than just treating the symptoms and giving some people a pass who should not even be here, or are using sock accounts to circumvent the rules. I know the mods will probably read this post, and all I can say is, I am not trying to flame you guys and gals, all I am trying to do is make it plain that the problems don't go away unless the root cause is dealt with. Please take the time to discern what that root cause is, regardless of your own theological leanings. It won't be easy, I know, and I don't envy any of you the job you have to do.

I've gotten a little long-winded here, but this has been eating at me for some time, not to mention all the problems I've had with people trying to hack my account. Do I need to tell you that those people are definitely part of the root problem here? For some reason, I've earned the special ire and hatred of a few posters, and former posters, and I'm not going to let them win! So, if I'm a little prickly at times, and a little blunt, know that I am dealing with a lot of stress right now. I would appreciate your prayers for all that I'm dealing with right now. If I have offended anyone in this post, or in any of my posts, I apologize, and ask forgiveness. If I seemed to direct my ire and frustration at anyone personally, it was not as personal as I may have made it sound.

NBF

 

[nobdysfool]

Wonderful opportunity to put Hentenza's request into practice.

 

[AndOne]

Man - things have gotten really bad here as of late. There are a lot of anti-calvinist posts going on that are really spiteful. I just don't know what to make of it - seeing such posts. Makes me think some of these people must have really gotten burned in a Calvinist church or something... I jut don't understand it.... I've been holding back on responding to any posts for awhile till things settle down a bit. Until then I'm just gonna read and report....

 

[nobdysfool]

Whatever target floats into my line of sight get shot at, at this point. sorry, but that's just the way it is....

Edit: Someone, who shall remain nameless, has taken me to task for that last remark, privately, in the most hateful manner I have ever seen. I have reported it, but I want to say publicly that I did not aim that at anyone in particular, it was a rhetorical remark to illustrate the fact that I have been a little on edge lately. Rather than offer prayer and counsel, he threatened me, and made rude remarks about my wife, me, and basically made fun of the fact that about 30 years ago, I received a head injury in a motorcycle accident. He has actively sought out information about me online, ostensibly for the purpose of harassing me. He is, in fact, harassing me and has been for a while. He thinks to call into question my Christian walk, in a manner that in no way could be called Christian. Supposedly, I have angered "a lot of people" in this forum, with my supposedly "over the top hateful posts."

So, I will ask the readers to tell me. Have I posted "over the top hateful posts"? Have I so offended anyone that I have caused them to stumble? Have I posted untruthful personal information about anyone here? Have I hurt anyone here?

If I have done any of the above, I apologize. I am zealous for what I believe, and I will not apologize for that. But I am not aware that I have done anything remotely like what I was taken to task for. I believe that the Holy Spirit would witness in my heart if I have and would convict me of anything like that.

Sorry to have to post a post like this, but I believe that exposing the unfruitful works of darkness is a responsibility that a Christian should not shrink from doing. What I received in PM today certainly qualifies as that kind of thing, in my mind.

And, to the nameless one harassing me, I did not do this at your behest, and I reject utterly the PM you sent to me and did not have the guts to allow a private reply.

Eph 5:8-14 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth (10) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. (14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

​

Thanks for listening,

NBF

 

[Eleiou]

Is relatively simple. If the reply is a flame then it is also a violation even if the person was goaded.

"Who(m)" has determined the definitions involved in a flame? Are there doctors/theologians on staff?

 

[nobdysfool]

"Who(m)" has determined the definitions involved in a flame? Are there doctors/theologians on staff?

It seems to me that if someone is goading or flaming another, the one so affected should at least have the right to reply. If the original flame or goad is removed, then the reply to it should be removed. But to allow one to stand while eliminating the other is wrong. To charge infractions or issue warnings to someone for defending themselves, while allowing their attacker a free pass and allowing the offensive post to stand untouched is highly unfair, and smacks of doctrinal favoritism. Rules on goading, flaming and/or brinking must be strictly and impartially enforced, or they become meaningless.

A given moderator may personally think that doctrine "x", or denomination "y", or "-ism z" is completely bogus, but when it comes to moderating, their personal beliefs must take a back seat to the issue at hand. If there is flaming going on, no matter who or what is getting flamed, it must be stopped and deleted. If the flame is allowed to stand, then the reply to it, no matter how flaming it might be, should also be allowed to stand. Otherwise, the charge of biased moderating is a credible and provable charge. Biased moderating is not real moderating, it is promoting an agenda.

A decision on whether to delete a given flame or goading post must not be based on just how much of a flame or goad it is, vis a vis a reply to it, It's either a flame or a goad, or it isn't. And, I don't believe that it's right to delete a flaming or goading post with no action against the poster, but then action the one being flamed or goaded who replied to the post, for replying in kind. Either both are actionable, or neither are actionable.

Just my thoughts....

 

[united4Peace]

All I can say is, I am glad I will not be Modding this board [when/if I ever get thru the training ]

Your training for moderator??
Ohhhh nooooeeessss

 

[Eleiou]

Your training for moderator??
Ohhhh nooooeeessss

There used to be a criteria for being a MOD.............. LLOJ fails somewhere within the Nicene "test"........ at least at CF.

 

[Hentenza]

"Who(m)" has determined the definitions involved in a flame? Are there doctors/theologians on staff?

One does not need to have a Phd in theology to determine the definition of a flame. The posting rules were determined by the advisors and the site's owner. They are what they are and you agreed to follow them when you registered to this site.

 

[Eleiou]

One does not need to have a Phd in theology to determine the definition of a flame. The posting rules were determined by the advisors and the site's owner. They are what they are and you agreed to follow them when you registered to this site.

Your answer to my question is no, there are no doctors/theologians on staff






Someone show me where the CF splash screen on flaming is.... and how flaming is "qualified" on this open debate forum.

 

[Hentenza]

Your answer to my question is no, there are no doctors/theologians on staff






Someone show me where the CF splash screen on flaming is.... and how flaming is "qualified" on this open debate forum.

Brother, the rule is simple and requires very little interpretation.

BTW- Why is it important to have a Phd theologian on staff to interpret the flaming rule? I am trying to understand your logic for this question.

 

[Eleiou]

Brother, the rule is simple and requires very little interpretation.

Sure........... you're demon possessed = flame?

BTW- Why is it important to have a Phd theologian on staff to interpret the flaming rule? I am trying to understand your logic for this question.

Why would you not want someone to back you up