Where is our Wiki rules?

[Bananna]

Is MJ officially a forum yet?

[Sephania]

Right here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5672821-wiki-messianic-judaism-of-the-new-cf.html)bananna :)

[Bananna]

Thank you.

[Ivy]

2.3 Debating and Teaching in MJ

Debating is defined by definition as a discussion involving a proposed solution to an issue. MJ Believers beliefs are not up for debate by anyone that is not an MJ Believer. You may ask questions to why we believe a certain way but may not challenge us on our beliefs.

Also not allowed are teachings against

Torah observance
Sabbath observance
Kosher observance
Keeping of Holy Days in the bible


A question can be perceived as a challenge, and sometimes it is.

Why is it undesirable to have our beliefs challenged?

I usually find that when someone challenges my beliefs, that that aids me in clarifying to myself why I believe as I do.

[ContraMundum]

2.3 Debating and Teaching in MJ

Debating is defined by definition as a discussion involving a proposed solution to an issue. MJ Believers beliefs are not up for debate by anyone that is not an MJ Believer. You may ask questions to why we believe a certain way but may not challenge us on our beliefs.

Also not allowed are teachings against

Torah observance
Sabbath observance
Kosher observance
Keeping of Holy Days in the bible


A question can be perceived as a challenge, and sometimes it is.

Why is it undesirable to have our beliefs challenged?

I usually find that when someone challenges my beliefs, that that aids me in clarifying to myself why I believe as I do.

Yes, furthermore, the definitions are as clear as mud.

The divisions have always been over the "how" and "who" of being Torah observant, Sabbath keeping, kosher and Holy Days etc...not the topics themselves.

Eventually, if these unspecified guidelines are kept, the reports will flow in from the extremes on both sides of the movement.

Here's how it will happen:

One poster will say that not everyone need keep the Law, but all may if they choose (a mainstream MJ position). Another, who believes in One Law for all (a less popular restorationist position) could concievably report that poster for being "against" Torah observance. This has happened about 50 times already since I've been a mod here. No exaggeration.

On the other hand, another MJ may come along with the position that the whole of the law was abrogated (a position that seems like the original MJ position since the movement started in the 60's) and both of the other groups could report that.

Again, someone could post that all should keep the Law, and thus offend the other two, resulting in reports etc.

Clearly, the movement is far too broad nowadays to cut out every kind of position that MJs hold to and have a flourishing, colourful forum that would sit in tandem with the vision of Erwin and CF.

I would suggest that the definitions be refined to be broad, yet concise enough to know what would be considered a post "against" the Torah etc. A broad via media would work well. Then all posters would have to respect the diversity that MJism in reality has.

[HadassahSukkot]

agreed.

[ContraMundum]

Cool!

Any ideas for the right words to propose, Hadassah?

[HadassahSukkot]

uhm... not at this time.. but I will think on it :)

[ContraMundum]

uhm... not at this time.. but I will think on it :)

Keep me (well, all of us actually) updated. :thumbsup:

[ChavaK]

A question can be perceived as a challenge, and sometimes it is.

Why is it undesirable to have our beliefs challenged?

I usually find that when someone challenges my beliefs, that that aids me in clarifying to myself why I believe as I do.

:thumbsup:
I agree- I love a discussion that makes me think
and learn. A discussion where everyone parrots
and agrees with everyone else's beliefs provides
neither experience.

[ContraMundum]

:thumbsup:
I agree- I love a discussion that makes me think
and learn. A discussion where everyone parrots
and agrees with everyone else's beliefs provides
neither experience.

I agree. That kind of forum is dreadful, and basically it eventually narrows itself down to a small handful of posters in time.

[ChavaK]

Yes, furthermore, the definitions are as clear as mud.

The divisions have always been over the "how" and "who" of being Torah observant, Sabbath keeping, kosher and Holy Days etc...not the topics themselves.

Eventually, if these unspecified guidelines are kept, the reports will flow in from the extremes on both sides of the movement.

Here's how it will happen:

One poster will say that not everyone need keep the Law, but all may if they choose (a mainstream MJ position). Another, who believes in One Law for all (a less popular restorationist position) could concievably report that poster for being "against" Torah observance. This has happened about 50 times already since I've been a mod here. No exaggeration.

On the other hand, another MJ may come along with the position that the whole of the law was abrogated (a position that seems like the original MJ position since the movement started in the 60's) and both of the other groups could report that.

Again, someone could post that all should keep the Law, and thus offend the other two, resulting in reports etc.

Clearly, the movement is far too broad nowadays to cut out every kind of position that MJs hold to and have a flourishing, colourful forum that would sit in tandem with the vision of Erwin and CF.

I would suggest that the definitions be refined to be broad, yet concise enough to know what would be considered a post "against" the Torah etc. A broad via media would work well. Then all posters would have to respect the diversity that MJism in reality has.

I am surprised how many posts get reported when
there is no need for it. Hopefully here we can
be civil enough to realize there is room for variations
on a belief and discuss these issues here rather
than crying "foul" for every post that doesn't fit
our particular beliefs (excluding of course those
posts that are flaming, racist, anti-semitic, etc)...

[ContraMundum]

I am surprised how many posts get reported when
there is no need for it. Hopefully here we can
be civil enough to realize there is room for variations
on a belief and discuss these issues here rather
than crying "foul" for every post that doesn't fit
our particular beliefs (excluding of course those
posts that are flaming, racist, anti-semitic, etc)...


That is why mods burn out here at MJ.

That is also why being a mod at MJ is considerably harder than at other forums. It's a great place to end up hated for trying to do the right thing by everybody- which is impossible.

For later reference to people interested in taking it up at some future time: Anyone interested in modding here needs a thick skin and a love for the posters that is as big as a stadium...which is why I have survived to this point. I love the posters, even the ones who hate me with passion.

[Ivy]

Cool!

Any ideas for the right words to propose, Hadassah?

Well, my name isn't Hadassah :D but I'll horn in anyway....I suggested this on the MJ rules wiki discussion area:

Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a debate area where people can hash to their heart's content on all these Messianic-relevant subjects?

I think the banned subject list should read something more like: no anti-Jewish/racist remarks; no dopey "Jewish conspiracy" hoaxes; no holocaust denial junk.....that's not an exhaustive list, maybe, but anything that's outright abusive.

And maybe we could leave out my unprofessional-sounding "dopey" and "junk" ;) :D

[Ivy]

Clearly, the movement is far too broad nowadays to cut out every kind of position that MJs hold to and have a flourishing, colourful forum that would sit in tandem with the vision of Erwin and CF.

Then all posters would have to respect the diversity that MJism in reality has.

This is it pretty much in a nutshell for me. :thumbsup: