Wiki: Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic

[Balance]

Welcome to the Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic Forums. This Ecumenical Forum was created for Charismatics of all denominations to gather together and fellowship. While you are most welcome to post in this forum, debate, discussion and teaching is only allowed by Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic Christians.

This wiki entry will contain what the forum membership has agreed upon for the rules specific to this forum as well as the guidelines for selecting new staff members.

Please note that these rules are to work in conjunction with the rules established for Christian Forums. These rules will not contradict the site rules, and site rules will always be applied.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules (Note: These rules are in a draft stage, and are subject to change.)

The Apostles' Creed
For the purposes of the Spirit-Filled - Charismatic/Pentecostal forum, a Christian is someone who agrees with the statements made in the Apostles' Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the universal church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Definition of Charismatic/Spirit-Filled
Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic believers can be from any denomination. They are those who believe that all the various spiritual gifts (or charisms) listed in the New Testament (including but not limited to the manifestations gifts found in I Corinthians 12:8-10) are active in the Church today and desirable in the life of the individual believer, for the edification of the Body of Christ. It is not required that the individual exercises/exhibits any specific spiritual gift(s).

"Cessationists," for the purpose of this forum, applies to anyone who believes that the spiritual gifts are no longer in use today. While they consider themselves filled with the Spirit, they would deny that the gifts of the Spirit manifest in the lives of believers today.

Anyone is welcome to participate and post in this forum. There are plenty of fellowship threads in which anyone can post. Debates and teaching in this forum can only be done by Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic Christians. Cessationist teaching or debates will not be allowed in this forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome from anyone.

Using [OPEN] to open threads to everyone
Debate and teaching is limited to Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Word of Faith members, as described in the definition of "Charismatic." There are times, though, that a member who fits that description might want to create a thread in which others may also participate in, even though they may not fit the definition of Charismatic.

To declare a thread as "open," the thread starter must prefix their thread title with [OPEN]. This will identify that the thread is Open to everyone for debate.

Only Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal, Charismatic and Word of Faith members, as described in the definition of "Charismatic" may start an [OPEN] thread.

Using [NO DEBATE] to prevent debate in threads
Debate and teaching is limited to Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Word of Faith members, as described in the definition of "Charismatic." There are times, though, that a member may wish to start a thread and have it free from debate.

To declare a thread as one that will not allow debate, the thread starter must prefix their thread title with [NO DEBATE]. This will identify that the thread is not open for debate.

What is Debate?
Debate is an informal or formal discussion of opposing viewpoints. It is characterized by back and forth discussion in which each side presents premises, support and conclusions in an attempt to convince or show the rightness of that position. Debate is often incited with provocative or rhetorical questions designed to counter another's conclusions and intended to incite a response. It is not debate to merely make a statement of disagreement with reasons for that disagreement.

Definition of Fellowship Posts
Participation in fellowship posts are open to anyone who wishes to post in this forum. Below is an explanation of what qualifies a fellowship post, and what does not.

Fellowship posts are not debate.
If you don't identify yourself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic, as defined above, then you may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

Fellowship posts are not apologetics.
Someone who is not Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal, Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal or Charismatic belief or political issues.

Fellowship posts are not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question "what do you think about speaking in tongues?" Only Spirit-Filled, Pentecostals and/or Charismatics can offer an opinion about that. A member not identifying him/herself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may those who don't identify themselves as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

Fellowship posts are not teaching.
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic member may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members they may not give instruction in the Spirit-Filled – Pentecostal/Charismatic Forum. Earnest questions are welcome from anyone.

What fellowship posts are.
Essentially fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. Posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

Forum Specific Rules
These rules are an expansion of the Christian Forum Rules and apply specifically to the Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic Forum. Site rules can be found in the Wiki: Christian Forums Rules

No Flaming
Flaming is defined as "insulting criticism or remarks likely to incite anger." It will not be tolerated in this forum. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
* Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
* Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
* Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
* Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
* Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above;

Concerning Prophecy
CONCERNING PROPHESY, WE BELIEVE that both the manifestation of the Gift of Prophesy and the office of the prophet are active in the church today. We also believe that the prophetic can come from any believer and is manifested in several ways, from a message of edification and exhortation to cautions regarding future events. Regardless of the type of prophetic word, our measuring line is the Word of God.

Rules for posting include:
1) The OP must start the thread Title with Prophesy: - - - - - This will easily identify the threads.
2) Because the web and this forum is a very open place, personal prophesy will not be allowed. You can PM or email a personal word to the individual.
3) Unless directly quoting scripture, a "thus saith the Lord" should not be used.

Ban Protocol
The Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic Forum has agreed to the Congregational Area Ban Protocol (http://foru.ms/t5994755-wiki-sticky-et-ban-protocol.html). Staff will use this ban protocol to evaluate serious offenses within this forum.



Snapshot taken: October 8, 2007 3:00pm PST


Snapshot: http://foru.ms/t6005089-sticky-spirit-filled-pentecostal-charismatic-forum-rules.html

[Balance]

I think one rule I would really like to see continued and strictly enforced is:

- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;

If you disagree with a public figure, then state why you disagree with them, but don't lower yourself to the point of calling someone a "false -----".

We should strive to be as smart as Gamaliel


Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

[probinson]

I think one rule I would really like to see continued and strictly enforced is:

- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;

If you disagree with a public figure, then state why you disagree with them, but don't lower yourself to the point of calling someone a "false -----".

We should strive to be as smart as Gamaliel


Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”
That makes good sense to me.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I like what Pete had done for the Word of Faith Wiki. The way that it is clearly stated where we stand. I think we should start with that as a base and move forward from there.

Regarding Balance's suggestion, I agree, but there should definately be room to discuss when we believe a person is not representing Christ in their actions or words. That can be done without flaming or insulting.

[flaglady]

I like what Pete had done for the Word of Faith Wiki. The way that it is clearly stated where we stand. I think we should start with that as a base and move forward from there.

Indeed, if Pete has no objection. After all - why re-invent the wheel?


Regarding Balance's suggestion, I agree, but there should definately be room to discuss when we believe a person is not representing Christ in their actions or words. That can be done without flaming or insulting.


And must be. That was one section of the rules I thought was evenly balanced and concise

as in:
You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words).
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above

[Saucy]

as far as I'm concerned...everything we had worked. Let's just bring those rules back and have people improve or take away from them. It makes our jobs a whole lot easier so we dont' have to start over from scratch.

[nephilimiyr]

I think one rule I would really like to see continued and strictly enforced is:

- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;

If you disagree with a public figure, then state why you disagree with them, but don't lower yourself to the point of calling someone a "false -----".

We should strive to be as smart as Gamaliel


Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”
I agree with the basic rule but I disagree that calling a well know public figure that is important to another's beliefs a false prophet is a flame. For many the reason why they may disagree with a public figure is because they do believe he or she is a false prophet and they should have every right to state that opinion.

[nephilimiyr]

as far as I'm concerned...everything we had worked. Let's just bring those rules back and have people improve or take away from them. It makes our jobs a whole lot easier so we dont' have to start over from scratch.
I agree. :)

[flaglady]

upon reflection - me too!

[JAS4Yeshua]

Why doesn't someone post those old rules in here, so we might look them over and discuss them? Definately would make a good starting point. :)

My question, though, would that bring back the notorious list that flaglady hates so much? ;)

[flaglady]

I'll make a thread to put them in and you can copy them in bit by bit for discussion as you need them, OK? There's a little too much to just copy the whole thing in here

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'll make a thread to put them in and you can copy them in bit by bit for discussion as you need them, OK? There's a little too much to just copy the whole thing in here
Sounds good. Thanks. :)

[flaglady]

Here y'go!!

Old rules - for reference only (http://www.christianforums.com/t5673502-old-rules-for-reference-only.html)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Thanks! :)

I believe we should take one topic at a time and discuss them. I think we should start with the basic beliefs of the SF/PC Forums. We know there are differences in interpretations, but there are still basic things we all do agree on. With this foundation, we can build on what is acceptable and not acceptable inside the forum.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I like how Pete emphasizes what WoF beliefs are. I think we should follow the same idea for our opening.

What we believe about Salvation
What we believe about God
What we believe about Jesus
What we believe about the Holy Spirit
What we believe about the Spiritual Gifts

Note, that there will be differences of opinion about the Spiritual Gifts. We need to find out what the common denominator is that all Charismatics, Pentecostal, WoF, etc believe. The rest should be fairly uniform I would think.

Any other "What we believe" that I'm missing?

[New_Wineskin]

I like how Pete emphasizes what WoF beliefs are. I think we should follow the same idea for our opening.

What we believe about Salvation
What we believe about God
What we believe about Jesus
What we believe about the Holy Spirit
What we believe about the Spiritual Gifts

Note, that there will be differences of opinion about the Spiritual Gifts. We need to find out what the common denominator is that all Charismatics, Pentecostal, WoF, etc believe. The rest should be fairly uniform I would think.

Any other "What we believe" that I'm missing?

Since this is an SF/C forum , I consider that there should be two sections - one what is a Christian . I think that a lot of time and energy has been spent by people to just say that the Nicene or Apostle's Creed is the best way to go . I only suggest to replace "catholic" with "universal" to get rid of that footnote .

The other section would be on SF/C - a simple definition of what sets them apart for another forum and a possible idea of the difference between SF anc C .

As with the rules part of this thread , reinventing the wheel will take a lot of time . I suspect that days and months were taken to get to where CF ended up .

[Saucy]

First of all...I think we should totally take away that "list". So any rules containing the list should be removed.

[probinson]

I like what Pete had done for the Word of Faith Wiki. The way that it is clearly stated where we stand. I think we should start with that as a base and move forward from there
I'll gladly take the responsibility of officially updating the Wiki, if no one objects. I like playing with all that crazy bbcode and formatting everything all nice and purty. :D

I think that taking the old rules, 1 at a time, is a great idea. Then, as we come to an agreement, each section can be officially added to a section of the Wiki.

Thoughts?

[JAS4Yeshua]

Since this is an SF/C forum , I consider that there should be two sections - one what is a Christian . I think that a lot of time and energy has been spent by people to just say that the Nicene or Apostle's Creed is the best way to go . I only suggest to replace "catholic" with "universal" to get rid of that footnote .

The other section would be on SF/C - a simple definition of what sets them apart for another forum and a possible idea of the difference between SF anc C .

As with the rules part of this thread , reinventing the wheel will take a lot of time . I suspect that days and months were taken to get to where CF ended up .
Well, I would go so far as to recommend renaming the entire forum to simply Charismatic, but that is a topic for another thread at another time. ;)

The Nicene Creed is good for an overview of what a Christian is, but we probably want to be a little more specific as this encompasses what we believe beyond what is said in the Nicene Creed. This would be the foundation for our rules, not the rules themselves.

First of all...I think we should totally take away that "list". So any rules containing the list should be removed.
Agreed.

I'll gladly take the responsibility of officially updating the Wiki, if no one objects. I like playing with all that crazy bbcode and formatting everything all nice and purty. :D

I think that taking the old rules, 1 at a time, is a great idea. Then, as we come to an agreement, each section can be officially added to a section of the Wiki.

Thoughts?
I have no problem with that, if you want to tackle two different Wiki's. I don't mind either, and I think Balance was interested (considering he started the thread. ;))

[probinson]

I have no problem with that, if you want to tackle two different Wiki's. I don't mind either, and I think Balance was interested (considering he started the thread. ;))
Sounds good to me. In fact, I would suggest having between 3-5 people to be "official" wiki updaters. That way, there will always be someone to update if real life interferes...

[Dave01]

It would do you well to see what rules need implementing.

[sonofkorah]

I can see a "page three" that is supposed to be here, but I cannot actually get to it.

It just dawned on me that I won't be able to see if anyone responds to this post either! :D

Well now, that's a real quandery isn't it? :D

[synger]

I like how Pete emphasizes what WoF beliefs are. I think we should follow the same idea for our opening.

What we believe about Salvation
What we believe about God
What we believe about Jesus
What we believe about the Holy Spirit
What we believe about the Spiritual Gifts

Note, that there will be differences of opinion about the Spiritual Gifts. We need to find out what the common denominator is that all Charismatics, Pentecostal, WoF, etc believe. The rest should be fairly uniform I would think.

Any other "What we believe" that I'm missing?

Actually, I think we may run into some difficulties with this. I think less is more, because while we may all believe the Nicene Creed, when we get into the actual doctrines we have about Salvation and the Holy Spirit, we're going to disagree.

The thing that all charismatics are going to have in common is the belief that the gifts of the Spirit are still given to the Church today. The "old definition" from before.

Anything else is going to exclude some who believe in spiritual gifts.

For instance, if we say that we believe that one must make a decision for Jesus to be saved, then you run afoul of all the Reformed, the Lutherans, etc., who believe that it's not a decision WE make.

If we say that there is a second baptism of the Spirit, you run afoul of all those who believe that there is only one baptism, and it is both water and Spirit at the same time.

If we say that one must speak in tongues as an evidence of the Spirit's work, you run afoul of all those who believe in tongues as ONE of the gifts, but not one that all believers will be given.

You see where I'm going with this? I think we should emphasize the doctrine that makes us draw together... the gifts of the Spirit, active and working in the Church today... and not even get into the many doctrines we may disagree on. Those are fodder for discussion threads, not rules.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Actually, I think we may run into some difficulties with this. I think less is more, because while we may all believe the Nicene Creed, when we get into the actual doctrines we have about Salvation and the Holy Spirit, we're going to disagree.

The thing that all charismatics are going to have in common is the belief that the gifts of the Spirit are still given to the Church today. The "old definition" from before.

Anything else is going to exclude some who believe in spiritual gifts.

For instance, if we say that we believe that one must make a decision for Jesus to be saved, then you run afoul of all the Reformed, the Lutherans, etc., who believe that it's not a decision WE make.

If we say that there is a second baptism of the Spirit, you run afoul of all those who believe that there is only one baptism, and it is both water and Spirit at the same time.

If we say that one must speak in tongues as an evidence of the Spirit's work, you run afoul of all those who believe in tongues as ONE of the gifts, but not one that all believers will be given.

You see where I'm going with this? I think we should emphasize the doctrine that makes us draw together... the gifts of the Spirit, active and working in the Church today... and not even get into the many doctrines we may disagree on. Those are fodder for discussion threads, not rules.
I do see your point, and I think you're right.

[synger]

Well, to get things going, I've added the old definition of charismatic/spirit-filled to the Wiki. I don't think we have too many disagreements on this, and if we do, we can edit it.

We believe that all the various spiritual gifts (or charisms) listed in the New Testament (including but not limited to the manifestations gifts found in I Corinthians 12) are active in the Church today and desirable in the life of the individual believer. It is not required that the individual exercises/exhibits any specfic spiritual gift(s).

[he4rty]

At the moment the liberals have one rule and one only which pretty much sums it all up.......

So we have the Charismatic verse as a descriptor of who we are

then as the rule

Rule (http://www.christianforums.com/t5669983-wiki-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal-wwmc-space.html)

[Balance]

The key to having universal rules that work and are equitable is to have them state what we believe in as general a way to be as inclusive as possible while not being vague.

The old rules did that for the most part, but IMO need some tweaking.

I'd be happy to help in setting the wiki.

How does this sound - Let's take the old rules 1 by one. Hash them out and when there's a quarem place the rules on the wiki?

Is that acceptable?

[probinson]

How does this sound - Let's take the old rules 1 by one. Hash them out and when there's a quarem place the rules on the wiki?

Is that acceptable?

Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe even take the existing rules and place them in the wiki as they stood before the changes, and modify as the membership comes to consensus on what needs tweaked in each point. That way, there's a framework to start with.

[sonofkorah]

At the moment the liberals have one rule and one only which pretty much sums it all up.......

So we have the Charismatic verse as a descriptor of who we are

then as the rule

Rule (http://www.christianforums.com/t5669983-wiki-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal-wwmc-space.html)

I absolutely agree with the concept of "simpler is always better".

If there are to be separations on the site that go as far as say "protestant and catholic", then of course something will have to be in place to protect the home team. My opinion would still be very minimalistic rules are better. :)

[probinson]

I absolutely agree with the concept of "simpler is always better".

If there are to be separations on the site that go as far as say "protestant and catholic", then of course something will have to be in place to protect the home team. My opinion would still be very minimalistic rules are better. :)
The nice thing about the wiki is that it can be both simple and complex at the same time.

Headings can say things like "Love your neighbor as yourself", but then you can expound on what that means for the SF forum. Then, those who want simple can simply read the headings, while those who are more detail oriented can read the paragraph that explains what that heading means.

[sonofkorah]

The nice thing about the wiki is that it can be both simple and complex at the same time.

Headings can say things like "Love your neighbor as yourself", but then you can expound on what that means for the SF forum. Then, those who want simple can simply read the headings, while those who are more detail oriented can read the paragraph that explains what that heading means.

My problem with that is the same as my problem with paraphrases of the bible such as "The Message". Too much personal bias is then used as the basis for interpretation.

Also, the more rules there are the more the interpretation becomes personal on the side of the "enforcer" and fairness can suffer as a result.

For instance, (and as a gross exaggeration) we could say that everything is a violation of the rules and then only allow that which we like or agree with.

[nephilimiyr]

At the moment the liberals have one rule and one only which pretty much sums it all up.......

So we have the Charismatic verse as a descriptor of who we are

then as the rule

Rule (http://www.christianforums.com/t5669983-wiki-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal-wwmc-space.html)
So if I ever get the urge to spam the forum up with useless ads and what not I know the sub-forum in which to do so....if they keep it at only one rule.

[he4rty]

So if I ever get the urge to spam the forum up with useless ads and what not I know the sub-forum in which to do so....if they keep it at only one rule.

I see what your saying, but really just don't want to see us get bogged down with rules.

Pro's idea seemed quite good.

[JAS4Yeshua]

The "Spam" rule isn't relevant to be stated here because it is something that already exists as a rule for all forums. I think we should address rules specific to SF/PC instead of reposting rules that are global to all forums.

[didaskalos]

No rules.

People just manipulate them for their own purposes.

No rules.

Free for all..

[probinson]

I see what your saying, but really just don't want to see us get bogged down with rules.

Pro's idea seemed quite good.
Am I "Pro"?

:confused:

If so, to avoid any confusion, my name's Pete. Glad to meet you. :D

[probinson]

The "Spam" rule isn't relevant to be stated here because it is something that already exists as a rule for all forums. I think we should address rules specific to SF/PC instead of reposting rules that are global to all forums.
This is true. A congregational rule can NOT contradict the main CF rules. Since spamming is addressed there, it is not necessary to include it in our forum-specific wiki.

What I did at the top of the WoF wiki was state;

Additionally, all of Christian Forums general rules also apply;
Wiki: Christian Forums Rules

[didaskalos]

Rules are created by domineering people who want to enforce them. Rules are agreed to by people who want to be dominated and controlled
I am neither.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Rules are created by domineering people who want to enforce them. Rules are agreed to by people who want to be dominated and controlled
I am neither.
I'm glad you are neither dominated nor controlled, but rules are a necessity to keep order. Imagine what our society would be like without laws. It wouldn't function that well. The message board is just a small section of society, and thus laws need to be implemented in order to keep the peace and friendly atmosphere that we all enjoy. :)

[TheGloryisHere]

Well, to get things going, I've added the old definition of charismatic/spirit-filled to the Wiki. I don't think we have too many disagreements on this, and if we do, we can edit it.
I don't like that defination. It's much like the Nicene creed to define if a person is a Christian. It doesn't really define anything at all.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I don't like that defination. It's much like the Nicene creed to define if a person is a Christian. It doesn't really define anything at all.
At the current time, it is the best definition that we have. Do you have a better definition?

[TheGloryisHere]

I absolutely agree with the concept of "simpler is always better".

If there are to be separations on the site that go as far as say "protestant and catholic", then of course something will have to be in place to protect the home team. My opinion would still be very minimalistic rules are better. :)
On the SF forum you won't be able to seperate like that. These are the Charismatics who are Filled with the Holy Spirit like in Acts 2 whether they spoke in tongues or not, and these people are in every denimination. This forum unlike the two subforums are not a particular religion, but just a people who have had the Charismatic experiance.

[TheGloryisHere]

I see what your saying, but really just don't want to see us get bogged down with rules.

Pro's idea seemed quite good.
We have to have rules like no flaming, and no spamming. You can't have anything without rules, or people will come in here trampling all over us.

[TheGloryisHere]

I'm glad you are neither dominated nor controlled, but rules are a necessity to keep order. Imagine what our society would be like without laws. It wouldn't function that well. The message board is just a small section of society, and thus laws need to be implemented in order to keep the peace and friendly atmosphere that we all enjoy. :)
I totally agree. We just don't want to get carried away with them, but we do need basic treat others as you would want to be treated rules, because there are some people whose conscience doesnt' seem to work in this area. Have you ever gone to the Yahoo chats that are not moderated? They are a nightmare. I can't even go there. You have all kinds of people coming into the Christian chat area and saying there is no God, or Jesus isn't the Son of God, or whatever, and people spend so much time battling that, there isn't any real discussion going on. So, yes, we do need rules, so that won't happen here.

[TheGloryisHere]

At the current time, it is the best definition that we have. Do you have a better definition?
We'll have one before this is over. They used to have one and then a certain person came in and whittled it down to nothing. (Not saying names)

[sonofkorah]

I have a new question prompted by one of the threads on SFPC.

Are muslims going to be allowed to post openly on all forums? Technically, they would be unbelievers right?

I don't know what I think about that.

[TheGloryisHere]

*

[JAS4Yeshua]

I have a new question prompted by one of the threads on SFPC.

Are muslims going to be allowed to post openly on all forums? Technically, they would be unbelievers right?

I don't know what I think about that.
Yes, they would be able to post whereever they want. We can't disclude them. Why would we want to anyway? It gives us a chance to witness and minister to them. We're setting up rules regarding debating, and there is already rules against them promoting their beliefs. It will be a good thing in the end. :)

[sonofkorah]

Yes, they would be able to post whereever they want. We can't disclude them. Why would we want to anyway? It gives us a chance to witness and minister to them. We're setting up rules regarding debating, and there is already rules against them promoting their beliefs. It will be a good thing in the end. :)


Ok. If I get enough blessing to get one of the characters, do you think I should dress him up as an Army guy? ;) :D

[he4rty]

We have to have rules like no flaming, and no spamming. You can't have anything without rules, or people will come in here trampling all over us.

Not saying we shouldn't have any rules just don't want to get bogged down by them.

[TheGloryisHere]

Ok. If I get enough blessing to get one of the characters, do you think I should dress him up as an Army guy? ;) :D
LOL sure if thats' what you want.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I have "cleaned up" the Wiki and fleshed out the rules based on discussion we've had here in this forum. Please look them over and discuss and vote on them here. Like a few others here, I don't want to see us overload ourselves with rules, so I hope we can find the basics and stick with them. :)

[he4rty]

They seem OK to me

[nephilimiyr]

There are two items in the current no flame rule that I think we will want to consider getting rid of.


* Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
Considering the new definition this website uses to determine who is Christian and who isn't; that being if you say you are, you are, then this rule wont fit in. In other words, we should be able to debate people who say that they are a Christian when what they say shows clearly that they are not.

For instance, if someone who claims they are a Christian but then says they don't believe Jesus ressurected from the dead then we should be able to tell them that they really aren't a Christian. In an open forum this rule has no place!


* Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words).
Concurrently, this part of the rule also doesn't have a place in the new forum. See explanation above.

[nephilimiyr]

I'm getting real confused here, I don't know whether I'm misunderstanding correctly what our job here is to do or whether some of you are misunderstanding what we're supposed to do here. From my understanding, CF doesn't have any current rules nor will it. Yet someone here has said about the no spam rule that there is no reason to consider either keeping it or rewording it because that is already apart of the CFs rule.

To my understanding that is false. There isn't any block of rules that CF has anymore. For the time being the current mods have been told that basically until the subforums come up with their own rules that we were suppose to stick with the basic rules of the forum, yet still not do anything unless a member turns out to be a troll and then we can ban him. Otherwise there are no rules.

The point being, if you don't want your subforum littered with spam you have to state that in your subforums rules because there isn't any main CF rules to go by except Erwins general statement about the forum. And again, we can't overide anything that Erwin has said in his statement.

[flaglady]

There are still core CF rules which will be applied. It's my belief that subforums need only rejig what it applicable to their own forum

[nephilimiyr]

There are still core CF rules which will be applied. It's my belief that subforums need only rejig what it applicable to their own forum
What are all these things that are only applicable to our subforum? If you say we can decide who can or can not debate in our forum I will have to say that that is wrong because we can't overide what Erwin said in his general statement about CF. What are these core rules that we still have? Are they just a fraction of what we use to have or are these core rules everything that we use to have? Because after all, a core is only a fraction of a whole. I think before we even start here we have to know what these core rules are because if there is anything left out of these core rules only then will we know if we have to add to it.

Since it appears to me that I have been misunderstanding what it is we're supposed to do here I probably will now have to agree with the guys who say that all we need is a short line or two otherwise what's the point?

[probinson]

The main purpose of the Congregational sub-forum wiki is to determine who can DEBATE, not who can POST.

It's been made clear that while we can not restrict ACCESS, we can restrict POST CONTENT. IOW, anyone is free to come into this forum and fellowship freely, and even ask questions in earnest. But they will not be permitted to come in to a congregation that they do not belong to and cause a ruckus by debating everything that congregation holds dear.

That is why, in the Word of Faith wiki, we are formulating a statement of belief, that must be adhered to in order to DEBATE in that forum. Additionally, we have CLEARLY identified what will be seen as a "fellowship" post.

These do not violate Erwin's intent. In fact, it is exactly what he did intend; giving the power to the membership of each congregation. It's not unlike leaving the doors of your church open on Sunday morning for ANYONE to walk in, while still clearly stating the expectations you have of a "guest" in your church.

Additionally, there is a Christian Forums rules wiki, that the ENTIRE membership is currently formulating. It looks a lot like the old rules, but things have been re-worded and re-structured somewhat. It's probably a good idea to check that out as well.

[nephilimiyr]

The main purpose of the Congregational sub-forum wiki is to determine who can DEBATE, not who can POST.

It's been made clear that while we can not restrict ACCESS, we can restrict POST CONTENT. IOW, anyone is free to come into this forum and fellowship freely, and even ask questions in earnest. But they will not be permitted to come in to a congregation that they do not belong to and cause a ruckus by debating everything that congregation holds dear.
I don't think that has been made clear at all. I have seen nothing stating what you have just said. The only thing I have seen Erwin say is that we can determine whether we want our forum to be a debate forum or a non debate forum but that doesn't mean we have the right to exclude people from debate if we chose to have a debate forum. Erwins intent for the new forum is to not exclude anyone but if you're going to exclude people from debate that is in fact what you are doing.


That is why, in the Word of Faith wiki, we are formulating a statement of belief, that must be adhered to in order to DEBATE in that forum. Additionally, we have CLEARLY identified what will be seen as a "fellowship" post.

These do not violate Erwin's intent. In fact, it is exactly what he did intend; giving the power to the membership of each congregation. It's not unlike leaving the doors of your church open on Sunday morning for ANYONE to walk in, while still clearly stating the expectations you have of a "guest" in your church.
So what you're saying is, a guest in your church, who isn't a christian is not welcome to debate anything that you might tell them, never is allowed to disagree with anything you might say? That's not right.


Additionally, there is a Christian Forums rules wiki, that the ENTIRE membership is currently formulating. It looks a lot like the old rules, but things have been re-worded and re-structured somewhat. It's probably a good idea to check that out as well.
Yes, thank you, that is the place I should be presenting my ideas on the no flame rule.

[probinson]

I don't think that has been made clear at all. I have seen nothing stating what you have just said. The only thing I have seen Erwin say is that we can determine whether we want our forum to be a debate forum or a non debate forum but that doesn't mean we have the right to exclude people from debate if we chose to have a debate forum.
In the new public staff forums, there have been many posts on this topic. Erwin himself said it somewhere in the original 4.000 post announcement thread(s). It's hard to keep up with all that's going on so quickly, but it's not too hard to find a statement that says basically what I said. You might check the Pentecostal wiki. I believe mnphysicist used the exact wording, "You can not limit access, but you can limit post content" in there.

So what you're saying is, a guest in your church, who isn't a christian is not welcome to debate anything that you might tell them, never is allowed to disagree with anything you might say? That's not right.
No, that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that someone who isn't a Christian in my church is not welcome to stand up and disrupt service to debate what is being said. Now, if that person wants to go out for ice cream, or give me a call on the phone, or meet with the pastor to have a discussion outside of the regular service, then we'll happily listen to their points and debate with them, but not in our home congregation.

Likewise here.

[nephilimiyr]

In the new public staff forums, there have been many posts on this topic. Erwin himself said it somewhere in the original 4.000 post announcement thread(s). It's hard to keep up with all that's going on so quickly, but it's not too hard to find a statement that says basically what I said. You might check the Pentecostal wiki. I believe mnphysicist used the exact wording, "You can not limit access, but you can limit post content" in there.
Yes, again thanks, I didn't know about this new forum. This is what I found.


Initial guideline for the creation of subforum rules:
1. A subforum rule cannot deny entry
2. A subforum rule can limit subforum debate
3. A subforum rule can exclude specific topics from being posted

For example, one could limit thread and post contents within a subforum with statements of faith, such as the Nicene Creed, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession. Or one could limit debates to only those who hold to a specific belief, while allowing topics to be discussed, or one could be pretty open. It is for the members to decide.

In the event, a subforum cannot achieve some level of agreement on what their rules should be, the creation of additional subforums are a possibility.
Ok, I'm totally clear on that now :)


No, that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that someone who isn't a Christian in my church is not welcome to stand up and disrupt service to debate what is being said. Now, if that person wants to go out for ice cream, or give me a call on the phone, or meet with the pastor to have a discussion outside of the regular service, then we'll happily listen to their points and debate with them, but not in our home congregation.

Likewise here.
UG, this is getting real difficult here.

My point is, and I could ask you, is a Christian in your church welcomed to be disruptive in the service? In my church we are welcomed to stop our pastor if we have anything to say or ask but if we are going to do that in a disruptive way, well I have to say that it wouldn't be welcomed.

It seems to me that the no flame rule should handle anyone who is going to be disruptive in any discussion in the forum no matter where it is, what it is about, or who is doing it.

Pete, the WOF forum doesn't concern me but the SF/P/C forum does. This is the wiki for the SF/P/C forum and I want to now say that I don't want any restrictions on anyone who wants to debate in the forum. Being disruptive, rude, flaming, is a rule that all should abide by and if there is a non christian who wont break any of those rules then I welcome them in debate with open arms. So concerning the SF/P/C forum I say there should be no restriction in debate.

[probinson]

My point is, and I could ask you, is a Christian in your church welcomed to be disruptive in the service? In my church we are welcomed to stop our pastor if we have anything to say or ask but if we are going to do that in a disruptive way, well I have to say that it wouldn't be welcomed.
Yes, frequently someone in our church will have a word, or prophecy, or whatever, and our congregation members are encouraged to exercise those gifts freely.

Visitors, not so much, because we don't know who they are.

It seems to me that the no flame rule should handle anyone who is going to be disruptive in any discussion in the forum no matter where it is or what it is about.

Pete, the WOF forum doesn't concern me as much as the SF/P/C forum does. This is the wiki for the SF/P/C forum and want to now say that I don't want any restrictions on anyone who wants to debate in the forum. Being disruptive, rude, flaming, is a rule that all should abide by and if there is a non christian who wont break any of those rules then I welcome them in debate with open arms. So concerning the SF/P/C forum I say there should be no restriction in debate.
I understand what you're saying neph, but with NO restriction on debating, there is potential to have all kinds of debates, debates like, did Jesus rise from the dead? Was Jesus really the Son of God born from a virgin, etc. These are things that we all take for granted now, but by opening the forum up to atheists, agnostics and others with absolutely NO debate restriction, that could very much become a reality here.

[talitha]

concerning the SF/P/C forum I say there should be no restriction in debate.
If Your Presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here. For how then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight, except You go with us? So we shall be separate, Your people and I, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth.
cf Ex 33

[Balance]

I understand what you're saying neph, but with NO restriction on debating, there is potential to have all kinds of debates, debates like, did Jesus rise from the dead? Was Jesus really the Son of God born from a virgin, etc. These are things that we all take for granted now, but by opening the forum up to atheists, agnostics and others with absolutely NO debate restriction, that could very much become a reality here.

Agreed - There should be debate restrictions that fall into general guidelines. i.e. the "debater" is a Spirit Filled Christian.

I also would suggest we have "hot topic" sticky's to prevent the same thread being posted over and over.

Sticky suggestions:

Benny Hinn
Healing and the Atonement

[JAS4Yeshua]

Personally, I would hate to overload things with stickies for two reasons.

First, if we have too many stickies at the top of the forum, there will be less room for other threads.

Second, that won't stop people from making tangent threads to talk about an issue related to the original topic, but still a derailment that requires a new thread to be created.

IMO, the fewer sticky threads we have, the better.

[nephilimiyr]

If Your Presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here. For how then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight, except You go with us? So we shall be separate, Your people and I, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth.
cf Ex 33
Good passage talitha :thumbsup:

However, this is an open forum now. Our forum is no longer our church, our sanctuary. This forum is now like the town square where everyone has a say and everyone is counted. I know it's hard to accept but it's true and we are always supposed to be ready to answer anyone who questions us as christians.

Concerning that passage, that is talking about totally separating yourself, in an open forum you can't. Totally separating yourself is no longer an option.

[probinson]

Good passage talitha :thumbsup:

However, this is an open forum now. Our forum is no longer our church, our sanctuary. This forum is now like the town square where everyone has a say and everyone is counted. I know it's hard to accept but it's true and we are always supposed to be ready to answer anyone who questions us as christians.

Concerning that passage, that is talking about totally seperating yourself, in an open forum you can't. Totally seperating yourself in no longer an option.
This forum is still very much our "church". If you look, Erwin has even renamed this entire section "Church".

Yes, it's open. Just like your church doors are open, but if someone came into your church and started saying things like Jesus wasn't the Christ, would you tolerate that? Surely you'd try to correct them, but if they persisted, then what? Would you debate with them endlessly that Jesus is indeed the Christ?

The idea of a "safe-haven" has been preserved by allowing each congregational forum to set their own debating criteria. I'm going to see if I can find the response from Erwin to this question for you.

[JAS4Yeshua]

There are two items in the current no flame rule that I think we will want to consider getting rid of.

* Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;

Considering the new definition this website uses to determine who is Christian and who isn't; that being if you say you are, you are, then this rule wont fit in. In other words, we should be able to debate people who say that they are a Christian when what they say shows clearly that they are not.

For instance, if someone who claims they are a Christian but then says they don't believe Jesus ressurected from the dead then we should be able to tell them that they really aren't a Christian. In an open forum this rule has no place!

* Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words).

Concurrently, this part of the rule also doesn't have a place in the new forum. See explanation above.
In regards to these two bullet points, I do think we should keep them in. These are points that do cause flaming. If I were to tell you that you weren't a Christian or that those who followed the Word of Faith teachings were following a cult, then I would definately be flaming you or those who followed the WoF teachings. Any other comments?

[nephilimiyr]

Personally, I would hate to overload things with stickies for two reasons.

First, if we have too many stickies at the top of the forum, there will be less room for other threads.

Second, that won't stop people from making tangent threads to talk about an issue related to the original topic, but still a derailment that requires a new thread to be created.

IMO, the fewer sticky threads we have, the better.
Good point, I agree :thumbsup: I tend to believe that the more sticky threads there are, the less people will read them.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Good passage talitha :thumbsup:

However, this is an open forum now. Our forum is no longer our church, our sanctuary. This forum is now like the town square where everyone has a say and everyone is counted. I know it's hard to accept but it's true and we are always supposed to be ready to answer anyone who questions us as christians.

Concerning that passage, that is talking about totally separating yourself, in an open forum you can't. Totally separating yourself is no longer an option.
Neph, a lot of your debate centers around the fact that anyone can come into our forum to post. Our rules here aren't stating otherwise. Read them over, several times it is said that anyone can post and anyone can ask questions. We are limiting debate, which we are allowed to do, and refining a couple rules that pertain to that. Everything we have so far is in line with CF rules. Take a look at the draft for more info.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules (draft version) (http://www.christianforums.com/t5670122-wiki-christian-forums-rules-draft-version.html)

[nephilimiyr]

In regards to these two bullet points, I do think we should keep them in. These are points that do cause flaming. If I were to tell you that you weren't a Christian or that those who followed the Word of Faith teachings were following a cult, then I would definately be flaming you or those who followed the WoF teachings. Any other comments?
I believe that this isn't the place to bring this discussion up but in the main CF wiki rules forum.

However I will answer your point. I believe it's a catch 22. You're right in what you say but at the same time, if anyone comes to this forum and claims to be a christian but says they don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead neither you or I can then say to them that they aren't a christian. Now usually that type of conversation isn't handled quite that simply but understand this, if you keep that rule in place you can't ever let anyone know that they need Jesus in their life because as soon as you suggest such a thing that can be construde into you saying that you are calling them a non christian...and you would be breaking the rule.

[talitha]

Sticky suggestions:

Benny Hinn
Healing and the Atonement
slain in the spirit

Good passage talitha :thumbsup:

However, this is an open forum now. Our forum is no longer our church, our sanctuary. This forum is now like the town square where everyone has a say and everyone is counted. I know it's hard to accept but it's true and we are always supposed to be ready to answer anyone who questions us as christians.

Concerning that passage, that is talking about totally separating yourself, in an open forum you can't. Totally separating yourself is no longer an option.
I understand your point. I quoted the passage because there needs to be a reason for having a Charismatic forum at CF and a Catholic one and a Baptist one, etc. Otherwise we will be just lost in one big "church" forum. What distinguishes Charismatics? the real and present manifestation of God's presence. The practice of spiritual gifts to edify the Body.

[talitha]

oh, ps - the problem with stickies is that most people just skip over that section without looking at it - I know I do, unless I'm specifically looking for something like forum policies.

blessings
tal

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, a lot of your debate centers around the fact that anyone can come into our forum to post. Our rules here aren't stating otherwise. Read them over, several times it is said that anyone can post and anyone can ask questions. We are limiting debate, which we are allowed to do, and refining a couple rules that pertain to that. Everything we have so far is in line with CF rules. Take a look at the draft for more info.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules (draft version) (http://www.christianforums.com/t5670122-wiki-christian-forums-rules-draft-version.html)

Thanks JAS4Yeshua, I understand that. My point is I am argueing that there should be no restriction for non christians who want to engage in debate and also follow the rules. I understand now that we are able to limit debate, that is what I am talking about.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I believe that this isn't the place to bring this discussion up but in the main CF wiki rules forum.

However I will answer your point. I believe it's a catch 22. You're right in what you say but at the same time, if anyone comes to this forum and claims to be a christian but says they don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead neither you or I can then say to them that they aren't a christian. Now usually ithat type of conversation sn't handled quite that simply but understand this, if you keep that rule in place you can't ever let anyone know that they need Jesus in their life because as soon as you suggest such a thing that can be construde to say that you are calling them a non christian...and you would be breaking the rule.
Well, the flaming rules are expanded from what are in the rules. They aren't changed from the rules, just explanations as to what flaming consists of.

Regarding your point, you are correct, you can't just call someone out for not being Christian. That would be construed as flaming. That has always been the case, even under the old rules (which the flaming section was taken from). What you can do, though, is tactfully point out in Scripture what it means to be a Christian, give explanations and lead people to Christ, not by calling them liars, but by loving them into the Kingdom.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Thanks JAS4Yeshua, I understand that. My point is I am argueing that there should be no restriction for non christians who want to engage in debate and also follow the rules. I understand now that we are able to limit debate, that is what I am talking about.
That would be something that would have to come to a concensus from the forum mebers, though. From what I've seen posted here and in other threads, most people do want to restrict debates in order to keep the relative peace in the forum. You can already see the problems we have in the debates among differing viewpoints among our own members, imagine adding Cessationists or non-Christians to those same debates? But, since this is a situation where the members choose what they think is best, that discussion might be better handled in a separate thread, probably with a poll, to see what everyone wants.

[JAS4Yeshua]

BTW: Jas or Jason is fine. ;)

[probinson]

OK. Found it!

From Erwin's mouth;
"The idea would be that individual forums have membership that can form their own rules through a wiki/collaborative process. If the current congregational forum wants to ban debate, and if the members of that congregational forum vote to agree, then it is so. Why should a person from another section care?"
Source (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36476607&postcount=419)

[nephilimiyr]

Yes, frequently someone in our church will have a word, or prophecy, or whatever, and our congregation members are encouraged to exercise those gifts freely.

Visitors, not so much, because we don't know who they are.
Well I guess it all now depends on what you call disruptive. I don't call someone in church prophesying or what not as being disruptive. What I call disruption is someone breaking into a conversation in order to flame, being totally off topic, or all around rude in their demeanor. This is not acceptible in my church whether you are a christian or not.


I understand what you're saying neph, but with NO restriction on debating, there is potential to have all kinds of debates, debates like, did Jesus rise from the dead? Was Jesus really the Son of God born from a virgin, etc. These are things that we all take for granted now, but by opening the forum up to atheists, agnostics and others with absolutely NO debate restriction, that could very much become a reality here.
With an open forum and still wanting to remain a member of this forum those kinds of threads should be welcomed. if someone honestly wants to know if Jesus really was the Son of God I know that I could answer that question. The whole point comes down to whether those people who make those threads are honestly wanting to know what we have to say or whether they are doing it for a joke and or make a joke out of us. For the non believer who honestly wants to know what Charismatics believe they should be given every right to engage in debate, they should be able to disagree if they do. They should be able to state their disagreements but with a no debate rule all they will be able to do is talk about the wheather, so what's the point of having an open forum then?

[JAS4Yeshua]

I know this thread is for discussing rules, but this particular issue (if we should or shouldn't limit debate) is something that is going in circles and getting us nowhere. My personal opinion, as stated earlier, is that this should be brought to a new thread in the SF/PC forum, possibly with a poll, so that everyone can have a say in the matter. The circles can continue there, while we continue to iron out the rest of the rules here. If later it is decided not to limit, it can easily be removed from the wiki.

[nephilimiyr]

OK. Found it!




From Erwin's mouth;"The idea would be that individual forums have membership that can form their own rules through a wiki/collaborative process. If the current congregational forum wants to ban debate, and if the members of that congregational forum vote to agree, then it is so. Why should a person from another section care?"Source (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36476607&postcount=419)
LOL, thanks Pete but I had already found enough info to convince me. :) Perhaps you missed that post? However, in actuality, this was the statement by Erwin in which I was baseing my arguement on that Erwin never said that we can restrict debate to a certain minorty.

You need to read my other post ;)

[JAS4Yeshua]

LOL, thanks Pete but I had already found enough info to convince me. :) Perhaps you missed that post? However, in actuality, this was the statement by Erwin in which I was baseing my arguement on that Erwin never said that we can restrict debate to a certain minorty.

You need to read my other post ;)
Actually, it is in the rules I linked earlier. The draft.
The members of the Congregational fora will be empowered to elect their own moderators and establish their own rules for who may debate in them. In essence, they will remain safe-havens for members of the Congregation. [Note: This does not mean that Congregational fora are allowed to make rules that conflict with the main CF rules, although their moderation guidelines may be different from those specified here].
That is in Rule 2, if you want to go to that wiki and check it out. ;)

[nephilimiyr]

Agreed - There should be debate restrictions that fall into general guidelines. i.e. the "debater" is a Spirit Filled Christian.

I also would suggest we have "hot topic" sticky's to prevent the same thread being posted over and over.

Sticky suggestions:

Benny Hinn
Healing and the Atonement



Healing and atonement? I think you're in the wrong wiki. This is the wiki for the SF/P/C forum not the WOF forum.

I think I could agree with you here. I believe I can agree to debate restrictions if it concerns all who are in the forum. As soon as you only restrict a minority then I have to disagree. I believe what I'm talking about then is restricting topics.

Look, as a moderator I had to deal with all the Benny Hinn and "Can God lie" threads. In my opinion there is no non christian that can say anything worse than what christians said or did to each other in those type of threads so why only pick on them and say they can't put their two cents in?

[TreeOfLife]

I haven't read all of the discussion posts, but it sure looks to me like you all are doing a great job.

If it has already been stated, please forgive me, but is there going to be in place a system for altering these rules "on the run" so to speak?

If there is, I would recommend keeping the intitial ground rules as minimalistic as possible, and let necessity provide clarity as it becomes obvious.

However, this comes from a guy who has virtually zero experience dealing with non-believers in a forum setting. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

It is about finding a balance of rules. Not too many to bog us down, but enough so that we are able to keep things relatively in order. Nothing states that we can't modify the rules (add or remove) at a later date.

[nephilimiyr]

I haven't read all of the discussion posts, but it sure looks to me like you all are doing a great job.

If it has already been stated, please forgive me, but is there going to be in place a system for altering these rules "on the run" so to speak?

If there is, I would recommend keeping the intitial ground rules as minimalistic as possible, and let necessity provide clarity as it becomes obvious.

However, this comes from a guy who has virtually zero experience dealing with non-believers in a forum setting. :)
Hello TreeOfLife, good to see you. I think you bring up a very good point. Start out small and as necessity demands it, change it by either adding to it or subtracting from it. The more complicated we make the rules to begin with will only make it that much harder to change it later when we find it isn't working.

[TreeOfLife]

It is about finding a balance of rules. Not too many to bog us down, but enough so that we are able to keep things relatively in order. Nothing states that we can't modify the rules (add or remove) at a later date.

Is it time then to post them on the forum for a vote? :)

In other words:

Are we there yet? Huh? Are we there yet? Huh? Huh? Can I have some more sugary candy? :D :D

[JAS4Yeshua]

I just updated the wiki last night, so I think there are still people that have to see them and add their comments. :)

Oh, and here's your sugar candy. ;)

[probinson]

With an open forum and still wanting to remain a member of this forum those kinds of threads should be welcomed. if someone honestly wants to know if Jesus really was the Son of God I know that I could answer that question. The whole point comes down to whether those people who make those threads are honestly wanting to know what we have to say or whether they are doing it for a joke and or make a joke out of us. For the non believer who honestly wants to know what Charismatics believe they should be given every right to engage in debate, they should be able to disagree if they do. They should be able to state their disagreements but with a no debate rule all they will be able to do is talk about the wheather, so what's the point of having an open forum then?
I know this isn't the WoF wiki ;), but we've addressed that by saying "Questions in earnest are always welcome from anybody".

A question in earnest won't turn into a debate, or at least it shouldn't. That's not to say that you can't disagree. You just can't voice that disagreement here. There are a bazillion other places on CF for just that kind of discussion and debate.

If I honestly want to know where you stand, and I ask questions to ascertain what you believe, that's one thing. If I want to know where you stand for the sole purpose of harassing you and giving you a hard time about it, that's another thing altogether.

[nephilimiyr]

I know this thread is for discussing rules, but this particular issue (if we should or shouldn't limit debate) is something that is going in circles and getting us nowhere. My personal opinion, as stated earlier, is that this should be brought to a new thread in the SF/PC forum, possibly with a poll, so that everyone can have a say in the matter. The circles can continue there, while we continue to iron out the rest of the rules here. If later it is decided not to limit, it can easily be removed from the wiki.
I just now saw your post here and think it's a great idea! Let the members decide, that's what Erwin wanted.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I made sure I had the same thing stated several times in our wiki as well. Thanks goes to Tamara's definition of a fellowship post for that. ;)

[nephilimiyr]

I know this isn't the WoF wiki ;), but we've addressed that by saying "Questions in earnest are always welcome from anybody".

A question in earnest won't turn into a debate, or at least it shouldn't. That's not to say that you can't disagree. You just can't voice that disagreement here. There are a bazillion other places on CF for just that kind of discussion and debate.

If I honestly want to know where you stand, and I ask questions to ascertain what you believe, that's one thing. If I want to know where you stand for the sole purpose of harassing you and giving you a hard time about it, that's another thing altogether.
What good is asking a question if when recieving an answer and you find yourself disagreeing with it or parts of it but can't state that disagreement? That's like throwing a bone to people who are staving. Pete when there is disagreement between two people and they both are discussing in earnest that disagreement, that is what debate is. When you tell me you want to restrict who can debate and who can't you are telling me that you are forbidding those non christians to engage in earnst debate. I believe you are talking about argueing and fighting and that shouldn't happen between anyone whether they are christian or not.

Again, flameing and harassment is already coverd in the "core" rules of the forum. If a non christian wants to harrass christians in their own forum then the core rules should apply because they aren't suppose to be harrassing or flaming anyone no matter who or what they are.

[JAS4Yeshua]

You know, I started a thread in the Messianic Judaism forum asking questions a while back. They had the same rules about who could or couldn't debate in their forums. I was able to ask my questions as well as state my disagreements in order to get further explanation. My disagreements, though, were still formed as questions to elicit more answers for clarity. They still understood I disagreed, and yet answered my questions. Therefore I wasn't outside of the rules, and everything was handled smoothly. That is the point of earnest questions as opposed to debating.

[TreeOfLife]

What good is asking a question if when recieving an answer and you find yourself disagreeing with it or parts of it but can't state that disagreement? That's like throwing a bone to people who are staving. Pete when there is disagreement and between two people and they both are discussing that disagreement that is what debate is. I believe you are talking about argueing and fighting and that shouldn't happen between anyone whether they are christian or not.

Again, flameing and harassment is already coverd in the "core" rules of the forum. If a non christias wants to harrass christians in their forum then the core rules should apply.

I think I agree in principle with this question.

There has to be a way for non-christians to elaborate, or we will end up doing nothing but beating them over the head with the bible.

[JAS4Yeshua]

See my previous post. Elaboration is fine, as long as it doesn't turn into debate. I'd hate to have to add a section on Earnest Questions (like we have for Fellowship Posts), but if we think it is necessary, we should discuss that.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I think where questions turn into debates is when the one posing the questions starts regularly saying "yes but" or something similar to impress their point of view, as opposed to asking the questions in order for additional clarity.

[Balance]

Thanks JAS4Yeshua, I understand that. My point is I am argueing that there should be no restriction for non christians who want to engage in debate and also follow the rules. I understand now that we are able to limit debate, that is what I am talking about.

Totally disagree! This would usher in complete chaos IMO. Having no restrictions would open a door to anything goes.

[Balance]

You know, I started a thread in the Messianic Judaism forum asking questions a while back. They had the same rules about who could or couldn't debate in their forums. I was able to ask my questions as well as state my disagreements in order to get further explanation. My disagreements, though, were still formed as questions to elicit more answers for clarity. They still understood I disagreed, and yet answered my questions. Therefore I wasn't outside of the rules, and everything was handled smoothly. That is the point of earnest questions as opposed to debating.

Well said!

[Balance]

Regarding debating -

Why not consider some rules regarding debate format.

If we are going to debate - then hold a debate, not an argument of the same things being repeated time and again.

Again not making the job too complex, but have some general guidelines:

Example:

Topic of thread:

Debate: Billy Graham is really a girl.

(post one) Point: I believe Billy Graham is really a girl because: proof 1 - link 1 - opinion 1.

Following post would give rebuttal and provide whatever proof - link - opinion.

The original poster or anyone has the ability to reply but must cite further proofs, links or opinions - not just repeat what has already been given.

[Balance]

I agree with the basic rule but I disagree that calling a well know public figure that is important to another's beliefs a false prophet is a flame. For many the reason why they may disagree with a public figure is because they do believe he or she is a false prophet and they should have every right to state that opinion.

Calling a name is always a flame. If you disagree with someone you have every right to state why you disagree with them. You can do so without going to name calling.

If a person says they are a Christian and we are to accept that at face value - how can you do less for a minister?

[JAS4Yeshua]

Regarding debating -

Why not consider some rules regarding debate format.

If we are going to debate - then hold a debate, not an argument of the same things being repeated time and again.

Again not making the job too complex, but have some general guidelines:

Example:

Topic of thread:

Debate: Billy Graham is really a girl.

(post one) Point: I believe Billy Graham is really a girl because: proof 1 - link 1 - opinion 1.

Following post would give rebuttal and provide whatever proof - link - opinion.

The original poster or anyone has the ability to reply but must cite further proofs, links or opinions - not just repeat what has already been given.

While that is a good idea, it would be very hard to implement. What you are describing is traditional debating format which most people aren't adept in handling, so they post the way they know how. I think it would be better to just keep the rules regarding flaming and defamation of character to keep things relatively under control. Besides, creating a rule for debates seems a little counter-productive. We're trying to find the balance of rules, not overload ourselves with them.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Calling a name is always a flame. If you disagree with someone you have every right to state why you disagree with them. You can do so without going to name calling.

If a person says they are a Christian and we are to accept that at face value - how can you do less for a minister?
That is why I added the Defamation of Character section, to cover that. ;)

[probinson]

I think where questions turn into debates is when the one posing the questions starts regularly saying "yes but" or something similar to impress their point of view, as opposed to asking the questions in order for additional clarity.
:thumbsup:

That's what I was trying to say by "questions asked in earnest".

[Balance]

That is why I added the Defamation of Character section, to cover that. ;)

I added a line to the defamation list to help clarify, if an individual believes I am a "false whatever", under the previous list they could call me that name.

[talitha]

wait, hold everything - did someone say something about sugary candy?

[JAS4Yeshua]

*Hands talitha some sugary candy*

Yup. Here you go. :)

[nephilimiyr]

You know, I started a thread in the Messianic Judaism forum asking questions a while back. They had the same rules about who could or couldn't debate in their forums. I was able to ask my questions as well as state my disagreements in order to get further explanation. My disagreements, though, were still formed as questions to elicit more answers for clarity. They still understood I disagreed, and yet answered my questions. Therefore I wasn't outside of the rules, and everything was handled smoothly. That is the point of earnest questions as opposed to debating.
Well why is it that no one here believes that a non christian is capable of earnest debate? The way you conducted yourself in the Messianic forum would be breaking the rule for debate because according to the old definition as soon as you recieved your answer you were not supposed to voice you opinion about it. I assume because of your charm and grace nobody seemed to care that you did. I think that is what I'm trying to get at here. If there is a non christian who is willing and able to engage in earnest debate then they shouldn't be breaking rules to do so.

If there is going to be any restriction on debate and towards a group of people then I call for a restriction on debate for people who can't debate in earnest. Being a moderator here for 1 year I can tell you that there are members of the SF/P/C (christians) who don't debate in earnest.

[nephilimiyr]

Totally disagree! This would usher in complete chaos IMO. Having no restrictions would open a door to anything goes.
I totally disagree with you! We've had Christians debating christians here for years and have had just as much chaos.

Opening the door to anything that goes will only be the result of either not having any rules at all or moderators who don't do their job.

[nephilimiyr]

I think I agree in principle with this question.

There has to be a way for non-christians to elaborate, or we will end up doing nothing but beating them over the head with the bible.
Exactly! WOW! someone who understands. Thanks Tree :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Well why is it that no one here believes that a non christian is capable of earnest debate? The way you conducted yourself in the Messianic forum would be breaking the rule for debate because according to the old definition as soon as you recieved your answer you were not supposed to voice you opinion about it. I assume because of your charm and grace nobody seemed to care that you did. I think that is what I'm trying to get at here. If there is a non christian who is willing and able to engage in earnest debate then they shouldn't be breaking rules to do so.

If there is going to be any restriction on debate and towards a group of people then I call for a restriction on debate for people who can't debate in earnest. Being a moderator here for 1 year I can tell you that there are members of the SF/P/C (christians) who don't debate in earnest.
As stated previously, earnest questions are fine. That is written in a couple different places in the wiki. If we need to define what earnest questions are, then we'll do so. Debating and earnest questioning are two different things. I do agree, though, that there are people who can't debate in earnest. That is another matter entirely. ;)

[nephilimiyr]

See my previous post. Elaboration is fine, as long as it doesn't turn into debate. I'd hate to have to add a section on Earnest Questions (like we have for Fellowship Posts), but if we think it is necessary, we should discuss that.
JAS4Yeshua, look in your dictionary for the meaning of the word debate. I agree that you will find argue and fight within those definitions but here is the definition I am going by.

Webster's: To discuss opossing reasons, argue. To fight or quarrel. To disupte.

Again, fighting and quarrelling is already covered under the core rules so that leaves "discuss opossing reasons" as the only thing we have to consider while determining whether non christians are allowed to debate in our forum. If you wont allow non christians to discuss their opossing reasons then you are in effect not allowing them to elaborate on what they think or believe.

I see you agreeing with me more than you may think. ;)

[JAS4Yeshua]

JAS4Yeshua, look in your dictionary for the meaning of the word debate. I agree that you will find argue and fight within those definitions but here is the definition I am going by.

Webster's: To discuss opossing reasons, argue. To fight or quarrel. To disupte.

Again, fighting and quarrelling is already covered under the core rules so that leaves "discuss opossing reasons" as the only thing we have to consider while determining whether non christians are allowed to debate in our forum. If you wont allow non christians to discuss their opossing reasons then you are in effect not allowing them to elaborate on what they think or believe.

I see you agreeing with me more than you may think. ;)
(Jason or Jas is fine ;))

Asking earnest questions isn't arguing, though. Asking questions in order to get a better understanding, even if the basis of those questions are because of a different point of view, is not arguing.

You're right, we probably aren't disagreeing much, but it is a matter of semantics. We're discussing the difference between debate and asking earnest questions. The line can get blurred, but there still has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[flaglady]

Well why is it that no one here believes that a non Christian is capable of earnest debate? .......... I think that is what I'm trying to get at here. If there is a non Christian who is willing and able to engage in earnest debate then they shouldn't be breaking rules to do so.


I rather thought that was the whole point of making the board totally open - so we could witness to the unbelievers. What would be the point if they weren't allowed to debate?




If there is going to be any restriction on debate and towards a group of people then I call for a restriction on debate for people who can't debate in earnest.

I absolutely agree!



Being a moderator here for 1 year I can tell you that there are members of the SF/P/C (Christians) who don't debate in earnest.

We've had Christians debating Christians here for years and have had just as much chaos.

Sadly too, too ironically true!

[TreeOfLife]

I really think it's important for non-believers to be able to express themselves without a great deal of restriction in any way. How about if we begin thinking along the lines of non-believers and those of non-SFPC faiths?

Wouldn't actual non-believers fall into a certain set group of icons, and non-SFPC faiths be a completely different set of icons?

For instance, I believe Lutherans fall into the catagory of cessationists (I could be wrong, but for this example lets say they do). They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, however; even by the current rules they are only allowed to post in fellowship threads, or simply ask questions in other threads with no debating or arguing allowed at all. But a true non-believer would have an icon such as "atheist" or "agnostic" or some other such thing. They do not believe in Christ in any orthodox way at all, and I really think those are the ones that we need to engage with as few restrictions as possible.

Can there be a way to do such a thing? I think it's a desirable situation to work towards, but what does everybody else think?

[nephilimiyr]

Calling a name is always a flame. If you disagree with someone you have every right to state why you disagree with them. You can do so without going to name calling.

If a person says they are a Christian and we are to accept that at face value - how can you do less for a minister?



With the new rules of CF I can't do that anymore. For now on anytime someone, who I don't know, comes and says that they are a christian I will need more than their proclamation of being a christian if I am to determine whether or not they are in fact a christian. I'm sorry but I don't believe saying someone is a false prophet is the same thing as name calling, it's more like getting the point over.

My point with the identifying a public figure as a christian or a false prophet stems from my belief that an open board with an open discussion should be made easy for all concerned. We all know many of these people believe Benny Hinn is a false prophet so why make them jump through hoops in order to express their belief in that? Now that expression shouldn't entail calling Benny Hinn or any other public figure a horses ass or what not but calling someone a false prophet beats the chase and gets right down to the basic point of why people may think the way they do. I realise that calling someone a "false prophet" is going to bring out alot of emotion but Benny Hinn and other such topics will always bring about heated discussions, you can never get around it.

For the record; I hold alot of respect for Benny Hinn. I have listened to a few TBN Praise the Lord shows where he was ministering and believe he is an awesome annointed man of God and I personally have been blessed through Benny Hinn's Knowledge and devotion to God. I think the man is awesome to say the least! :thumbsup:

[nephilimiyr]

I'm pretty much done with debateing this issue on debate. I'm going to go with JAS4Yeshua very fine point on letting the members decide so I'm going to post a poll thread in the SF/P/C forum and ask the members what they are thinking.

JAS4Yeshua post is worth repeating!


I know this thread is for discussing rules, but this particular issue (if we should or shouldn't limit debate) is something that is going in circles and getting us nowhere. My personal opinion, as stated earlier, is that this should be brought to a new thread in the SF/PC forum, possibly with a poll, so that everyone can have a say in the matter. The circles can continue there, while we continue to iron out the rest of the rules here. If later it is decided not to limit, it can easily be removed from the wiki.

[talitha]

For the record; I hold alot of respect for Benny Hinn. I have listened to a few TBN Praise the Lord shows where he was ministering and believe he is an assume annointed man of God and I personally have been blessed through Benny Hinn's Knowledge and devotion to God. I think the man is assume to say the least! :thumbsup:
Is this a joke, or did you mean to say "awesome?"

With the new rules of CF I can't do that anymore. For now on anytime someone, who I don't know, comes and says that they are a christian I will need more than their proclamation of being a christian if I am to determine whether or not they are in fact a christian.
Yeah, me too *sigh*

I rather thought that was the whole point of making the board totally open - so we could witness to the unbelievers. What would be the point if they weren't allowed to debate?
You know, I'm not as nervous about opening SFPC up to nonChristians as I am about opening it up to cessationists.....

[TheGloryisHere]

there needs to be a reason for having a Charismatic forum at CF and a Catholic one and a Baptist one, etc. Otherwise we will be just lost in one big "church" forum. What distinguishes Charismatics? the real and present manifestation of God's presence. The practice of spiritual gifts to edify the Body.
I agree with this.

[TheGloryisHere]

Totally disagree! This would usher in complete chaos IMO. Having no restrictions would open a door to anything goes.
I agree. It would be like the yahoo chats. No rules about non-believers would be total chaos. People need to go visit the yahoo Christian area, and then decide do they really want that here??

[TreeOfLife]

Can somebody post, in a nutshell, what happens now when a post is reported? (or a link to the instructions?) I looked all over and couldn't find it.

Thanks. :)

[TheGloryisHere]

Can somebody post, in a nutshell, what happens now when a post is reported? (or a link to the instructions?) I looked all over and couldn't find it.

Thanks. :)
I think if they agree, it can only be deleted. If its a dumb report, then nothing would happen to it.

[TreeOfLife]

I think if they agree, it can only be deleted. If its a dumb report, then nothing would happen to it.

But who is "they"?

[TreeOfLife]

In this section:

Charismatic believers can be from any denomination. They are those who believe that all the various spiritual gifts (or charisms) listed in the New Testament (including but not limited to the manifestations gifts found in I Corinthians 12) are active in the Church today and desirable in the life of the individual believer. It is not required that the individual exercises/exhibits any specific spiritual gift(s).

Can we underline the word "specific"? It may sound nit-picky on my part, but I think the point of the sentence would be better made that way.

(or am I supposed to make that sort of suggestion on the wiki thing itself? I will try that too. :) )

[nephilimiyr]

Is this a joke, or did you mean to say "awesome?"


LOL, I had just woken up when I wrote that. I noticed that I did it twice....someone please pass me the coffee!



You know, I'm not as nervous about opening SFPC up to nonChristians as I am about opening it up to cessationists.....
That's now the second time I have seen someone say something like this. Um, what does cessationists believe, what is the theology? If you could pm me I would be most appreciative :)

[TreeOfLife]

Well now that's a little scarey. The wiki thing actually let me go ahead and underline the word.

I don't know if I like that, and I sure don't know if I should have done it. Should I go back and undo it?

[nephilimiyr]

This post is probably going to be the last post in debate I will enter concerning debate restrictions. In fact, I'm not even going to say anything but let Sanctus Real say it all.

Where We Belong; song and lyrics by Sanctus Real


Are we afraid of what people say, what they think about us?
This is the way of cynical learning to trust
Everyone is scared of feeling out of place

Breakaway the walls
Carry us to where we belong
Make a way for us to follow grace so we can love everyone the same

Can I learn to drop my guard and show someone my heart
Break the vice of stereotypes that keep us apart
I'm no stranger to the feelings of being insecure and out of place

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'm pretty much done with debateing this issue on debate. I'm going to go with JAS4Yeshua very fine point on letting the members decide so I'm going to post a poll thread in the SF/P/C forum and ask the members what they are thinking.

JAS4Yeshua post is worth repeating!
Thanks, Nephilimiyr. :thumbsup:

For those who are interested, here's the link to his thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5694550

Since the rules are a community effort, please make sure you vote. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

That's now the second time I have seen someone say something like this. Um, what does cessationists believe, what is the theology? If you could pm me I would be most appreciative :)
I know you wanted a PM, but in case others have the same question, I'm posting here what was posted in the rules.

Cessationists for the purpose of this forum applies to anyone who believes that the spiritual gifts are no longer in use today. While they might consider themselves filled with the Spirit, they would deny that the gifts of the Spirit manifest in the lives of believers today.

I'll PM this to you as well. ;)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Well now that's a little scarey. The wiki thing actually let me go ahead and underline the word.

I don't know if I like that, and I sure don't know if I should have done it. Should I go back and undo it?
It's ok. There is a History feature that allows us to undo changes if we need to. Also, there was talk of having a team that handles editing and updating the wiki. There was no vote yet, just Balance volunteering, Flaglady nominating me, and Probinson offering to help. As of yet, there have been no objections.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Can somebody post, in a nutshell, what happens now when a post is reported? (or a link to the instructions?) I looked all over and couldn't find it.

Thanks. :)
I think they're still trying to work that out. I'll leave this for someone who's still on staff. ;)

[TreeOfLife]

It's ok. There is a History feature that allows us to undo changes if we need to. Also, there was talk of having a team that handles editing and updating the wiki. There was no vote yet, just Balance volunteering, Flaglady nominating me, and Probinson offering to help. As of yet, there have been no objections.

When I first read through the rules I noticed some proof-reading errors. I will go ahead and fix them. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Be my guest. I could use a good editor. ;)

[TreeOfLife]

Can we move on now to questions about the "defamation of character" section?

(or get back to that topic if you all have already discussed it. :) )

[JAS4Yeshua]

Can we move on now to questions about the "defamation of character" section?

(or get back to that topic if you all have already discussed it. :) )
I think there's been talk here and there on it, but nothing definitive. Did you have specific questions regarding it?

[TreeOfLife]

I think there's been talk here and there on it, but nothing definitive. Did you have specific questions regarding it?

Yes, my biggest question would be why have it at all? I think it is covered in the general CF rules section (unless it has been removed).

Its the part about "you can say the pope is unscriptural, but you can't say he's the anti-christ" (I'm paraphrasing it here)

[JAS4Yeshua]

It is there for the same reason flaming is there. While they are both covered by the site rules, some members wanted it explained a little more, so that there is less confusion.

[TreeOfLife]

It is there for the same reason flaming is there. While they are both covered by the site rules, some members wanted it explained a little more, so that there is less confusion.

Fair enough then, but I would say that if it stays in it must get way more specific. It's way too subjective as it stands.

In fact, I would suggest that we solicit Tamara's opinion on what actually constitutes defamation of character in a legal sense.

Not that we would be using that definition, but that it might enable us to make ours less subjective. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'm not opposed, I just want to be careful that we don't get too bogged down with rules. We can always add to it later if it becomes necessary.

[Dave01]

I want to ask a question here just to clarify things, is the general section now becoming just for charismatics? Are you denying equal representation from the Pentecostals and the WOFers?

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed the rules seem to be stressing "Charismatic" in many places.

[talitha]

I want to ask a question here just to clarify things, is the general section now becoming just for charismatics? Are you denying equal representation from the Pentecostals and the WOFers?

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed the rules seem to be stressing "Charismatic" in many places.
Dave, as I understand it, "charismatic" is the broad heading that at the present both Pentecostals and WOFers come under, as well as Charismatic Catholics, Charismatic non-church people, etc., and the only thing that distinguishes us from other headings really is the fact that we believe in the practice of the manifestations of the Spirit listed in the early part of I Corinthians 12.

[Dave01]

Dave, as I understand it, "charismatic" is the broad heading that at the present both Pentecostals and WOFers come under, as well as Charismatic Catholics, Charismatic non-church people, etc., and the only thing that distinguishes us from other headings really is the fact that we believe in the practice of the manifestations of the Spirit listed in the early part of I Corinthians 12.

And I agree with that to an extent. I understand that some Charismatics can be filled but have yet to exercise their gifts given them.

I just wanted point things out how it was being written and ask for some clarification.

[TreeOfLife]

I'm not opposed, I just want to be careful that we don't get too bogged down with rules. We can always add to it later if it becomes necessary.

And I'm saying that all rules "bog" down. We either get rid of the "defamation of character" rules, or we make them clear enough to dissallow personal opinion as part of the administration of those rules.


I did PM Tamara to solicit her expertise as pertains to civil understanding of what "defamation of character' actually means.

Hopefully, if it's clear enough in the justice system to be defined, then we can take that understanding and make our own rule.

I have not heard back from her yet.

[tamlis]

checking in

[didaskalos]

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[JAS4Yeshua]

And I'm saying that all rules "bog" down. We either get rid of the "defamation of character" rules, or we make them clear enough to dissallow personal opinion as part of the administration of those rules.


I did PM Tamara to solicit her expertise as pertains to civil understanding of what "defamation of character' actually means.

Hopefully, if it's clear enough in the justice system to be defined, then we can take that understanding and make our own rule.

I have not heard back from her yet.
The Defamation of Character "definition" included in the first sentence was taken from the dictionary definition for defamation. If someone can think of a better way of writing it, feel free to post it here. The examples were a couple examples I could think of when I posted, and we can add more examples as necessary (Balance added one, I believe). I don't know if or why we would have to decide all the scenarios right now. That might be more than is necessary at this stage.

[TreeOfLife]

The Defamation of Character "definition" included in the first sentence was taken from the dictionary definition for defamation. If someone can think of a better way of writing it, feel free to post it here. The examples were a couple examples I could think of when I posted, and we can add more examples as necessary (Balance added one, I believe). I don't know if or why we would have to decide all the scenarios right now. That might be more than is necessary at this stage.

If I say that the Jim Jones guy that led more than nine hundred people to their deaths was a false prophet and NOT representative of christianity in any way, that would constitute defamation under those rules.

That shouldn't be so and I see NO need