Another forums stated rules...

[Magnetic]

I realize that when a person starts their own forum board, they're paying for that ability, so they can make up whatever rules they want. However, I was wondering what you thought of this rule:

Welcome to the new Christians Answer forum. As the description states, this is a forum for questions addressed to Christians from atheists, agnostics and non-believers.

If you are not a Christian, please do not answer the questions by the original poster, or join in the conversation to argue your anti-Christian points. Only the original poster and the Christians giving answers should post. If you are a non-Christian and you join a thread to argue an anti-Bible position, your post will be removed without warning.

This is obviously a christian based forum where this rule was taken from. They make it clear that it isn't a debating forum but where they give you christian answers.

My question is, what does such a rule say to you?

[Setesh]

I realize that when a person starts their own forum board, they're paying for that ability, so they can make up whatever rules they want. However, I was wondering what you thought of this rule:

Welcome to the new Christians Answer forum. As the description states, this is a forum for questions addressed to Christians from atheists, agnostics and non-believers.

If you are not a Christian, please do not answer the questions by the original poster, or join in the conversation to argue your anti-Christian points. Only the original poster and the Christians giving answers should post. If you are a non-Christian and you join a thread to argue an anti-Bible position, your post will be removed without warning.

This is obviously a christian based forum where this rule was taken from. They make it clear that it isn't a debating forum but where they give you christian answers.

My question is, what does such a rule say to you?

That I need to find this place and ask questions they aren't going to want to answer. But that's my reaction to most of these types of boards. But that's just because arguments with the mentally unarmed are how I amuse myself.

[Darth Wong]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: fundies are so accustomed to "preaching to the choir" that most of them honestly don't know how to do otherwise. That's why the most common reaction of a fundie to a skeptic is to look for an excuse to be "offended".

[Ace Pace]

I think its also a fear reaction, they think of science as heretical thought and want to 'protect' themselves from being exposed to it.

[SirNitram]

Standard issue. See, it works like this:

A true-blue Fundie is immune to any viewpoint but their own. But they do recignize everyone else in their little worldview is not as iron-clad proof against logic(They will internally justify this as their 'Faith' being 'Unshakable', while others are 'weak against temptation'.). Ergo, the only course is to protect others from anything but their viewpoints. Repetition being a form of indoctorine, they will eventually 'see the light'.

Of course, a logical person realizes that if merely being exposed to another viewpoint is enough to crumble the fundamentalist views, perhaps the views are wrong. The doubt of whatever the fundie is proposing is anathema to them; doubt is, after all, evil in their worldview.

[drachefly]

Much to their credit, the evangelical board Surlethe and I (and others) have been hanging out in has NOT taken this approach.

[Wyrm]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: fundies are so accustomed to "preaching to the choir" that most of them honestly don't know how to do otherwise. That's why the most common reaction of a fundie to a skeptic is to look for an excuse to be "offended".

And the next most common reaction is for a fundie to convert you, if Wong's fundie hate mail and my (only) serious evolution/creation exchange with a fundie are any indication. (I have no particular desire to repeat the experience. You can feel the brusing of your brainpan against their massive Wall of Ignorance. ) The amount of velvet and sugar coating varies, but it all leads to the same destionation. They all want to draw out the Fundie Within and convert you to be a slave of the LAWRD! Then again, that is why it's an evangelist movement, eh?

Ah, but most of us here have made our Fundies Within our personal mental gimps! Too bad for them! Sadly, not everyone has their mental loins so girded.

[CaptJodan]

I realize that when a person starts their own forum board, they're paying for that ability, so they can make up whatever rules they want. However, I was wondering what you thought of this rule:

Welcome to the new Christians Answer forum. As the description states, this is a forum for questions addressed to Christians from atheists, agnostics and non-believers.

If you are not a Christian, please do not answer the questions by the original poster, or join in the conversation to argue your anti-Christian points. Only the original poster and the Christians giving answers should post. If you are a non-Christian and you join a thread to argue an anti-Bible position, your post will be removed without warning.

This is obviously a christian based forum where this rule was taken from. They make it clear that it isn't a debating forum but where they give you christian answers.

My question is, what does such a rule say to you?

What it says to me is that they believe that board will be used for, say, turning people who question their godless ways into the fold of God. After all, if you're an athiest going to one of these boards in the first place, then it must be a cry for help....deep down you're seeking meaning, and you can only get that meaning from God.

Now, those godless athiests will do everything in their power to hold those in their number to them, and not let them stray from their immoral path. So in order to ensure that the righteous christians are able to properly persuade the questioning individual, they will make sure that the athiest cannot have any other views.

Bottom line, it's an admission of failure. Some level of what remains of their brain has made a connection that says "Our position is not as strong as theirs" and they try to balance the scores by minimizing the amount of information that the would-be convert (in theory, of course) would have access to.

Compare that to boards such as this one, which advocates evolution but isn't afraid to have fundies come here and make complete asses of themselves in front of the masses, and you get a clear picture.

(Plus, the rule goes a long way to showing you just how much God really values personal freedom, in their view of God.)

[The Silence and I]

The other posters have already covered this pretty well, all I can add is this exchange from TNG Ensigns of Command:

GOSHEVEN
This meeting is not for outsiders [to speak in].

DATA
Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?

Nuff said.
(Added the brackets to make it fit a bit better.)

[kheegster]

Perhaps you could go in and start ranting ala Fred Phelps, quoting from the OT? That would certainly qualify by their forum rules and yet take the absolute piss out of them.

[Darth Servo]

Reminds me of some of the Trektard debates on Mike's hatemail page where the Trektard tried to insist that the moment Mike said something they found offensive, it meant Mike automatically forfeited.

[kheegster]

Reminds me of some of the Trektard debates on Mike's hatemail page where the Trektard tried to insist that the moment Mike said something they found offensive, it meant Mike automatically forfeited.

This is far worse, because you could go in there and be perfectly polite and courteous, but the moment your arguments go against the WORD OF LORD, you get shitcanned.

[Wyrm]

Reminds me of some of the Trektard debates on Mike's hatemail page where the Trektard tried to insist that the moment Mike said something they found offensive, it meant Mike automatically forfeited.

I believe it was our good friend Mike who observed that Trektards seem to have a higher probability of also being creationists. That is, unless we're seeing some kind of wierd selection effect.

As such, it shouldn't be all that surprising that the two groups use similar methods. In a very real way, they are the same group, just with the Trektards replacing "Jesus/God" with "Federation/Q" and miracles with custom-crafted technobable explanations. It makes just as much sense.

This is far worse, because you could go in there and be perfectly polite and courteous, but the moment your arguments go against the WORD OF LORD, you get shitcanned.

Even if argued Jeopardy-style (ie, in the form of a question)?! BASTARDS!

[wolveraptor]

Now that's unfair. Perhaps through experience, Trekkies tend to be more fundamentalist, but think about how minute the fraction of trekkies you or others have met compared to the number of them in existence. Comparing blind worship of a religion to a frickin' sci-fi show is unwarranted.

Note: my definition of Trekkie is one who watched Star Trek as a fan of the series.

[General Zod]

Now that's unfair. Perhaps through experience, Trekkies tend to be more fundamentalist, but think about how minute the fraction of trekkies you or others have met compared to the number of them in existence. Comparing blind worship of a religion to a frickin' sci-fi show is unwarranted.

Not really so unfounded when a sizable amount of the hardcore darkstar style trekkies tend to fall back on debating styles that fundies tend to use.

[wolveraptor]

Not really so unfounded when a sizable amount of the hardcore darkstar style trekkies tend to fall back on debating styles that fundies tend to use.

Translation: Fundies tend to use the same debating styles as fundies.

Wow, that was insightful.
Comparing religious fundies to sci-fi fundies is a meaningless comparison. You have to look at religious fundies compared to the entire population of Trekkies to justify a statement that Trekkies tend to be fundies.

[Coalition]

For a board like that, I'd follow the rules, and send my arguments to the original poster so he/she can use them.

[Wyrm]

Now that's unfair. Perhaps through experience, Trekkies tend to be more fundamentalist, but think about how minute the fraction of trekkies you or others have met compared to the number of them in existence. Comparing blind worship of a religion to a frickin' sci-fi show is unwarranted.

Note: my definition of Trekkie is one who watched Star Trek as a fan of the series.

Ah, but we're not talking about Trekkies in this sense, are we? We're talking about Trektards. Y'know, those who use the "no lasers" wankage, the "small galaxy" bug, and so on, and turn out to be the frequent fodder for Parting Shots?

It's this small subgroup of Trekkies we're talking about. A levelheaded Trekkie will read the canon and fully realize that the Federation would be screwed if the Empire decided to invade.

If I remember correctly, somewhere in his trektard hate mail pages Mike says that he's observed a corrolation between Trektardness and fundiness. I'll hunt down the reference tomorrow (I'm about to turn into a pumkin) and report back.

[Trytostaydead]

What does the rule say to me? They maintain it/foot the bill, they can make the rules. <shrug>

[Magnetic]

For a board like that, I'd follow the rules, and send my arguments to the original poster so he/she can use them.

Well, that would be a good route to take, but on that forum, you have to have been a member of the forum for a certain period of time (a month or two), and have a certain number of posts before you are even granted the use of the Private Message system.

[Anguirus]

What does the rule say to me? That they do not value thought, but blind faith. If they can't defend against logic, they outlaw it.

[Trytostaydead]

What does the rule say to me? That they do not value thought, but blind faith. If they can't defend against logic, they outlaw it.

I don't quite agree. It's actually perfectly acceptable that a privately runned forum can ask that people not start an anti-whatever their cause is argument on their board. Especially with a name like Christian Answer, I think they're looking for response from a Christian's point of view on a subject

[Anguirus]

^ Of course it's acceptable, because a privately run forum can do whatever it wants. I'm just giving my opinion. What that rule establishes is an umpteen Christian vs. one nonbeliever hierarchy on each thread. Plus, it limits what a nonbeliever can do to educate or disagree with another nonbeliever he encounters on the forum. Of course it's acceptable. It's also designed not for discussion, but to bring people "back to the fold."

If they were not afraid of logical discussion, that rule would not exist. You can get "Christian Answers" without restricting the responses of non-Christians.

The way the rule is written is also a big hint. It's a Manichean "if you aren't Christian, you're anti-Christian" policy. What if a non-believer disagrees with a Christian about his or her interpretation of a particular passage? They are silenced.

[Rogue 9]

This would be 123Christian, right? Yeah, they have the Christian Answers forum, which is why you go to the other forums to start challenging people. Unless this is some other board where the whole thing is that way.

[Magnetic]

What if a non-believer disagrees with a Christian about his or her interpretation of a particular passage? They are silenced.

Actually, if you are a believer yet hold a view point that is contrary to Protestant Faith, then you aren't really allowed to post either. This from one of the mods concerning the topic of the trinity, three individuals but only One God:

I would like to remind everyone that the subject of
this thread is Verses that show the Trinity exists

Not verses that show the Trinity doesnt exist ..

We do not allow the denial of the Holy Trinity or Christs Deity
on this board.. It is an essential part of the protestant doctrin.
and teachings counter to this will be deleted ..