New community TOS

[OzSpen]

Alright members in good standing, we need your help.

I've been around since 2004 and I've watched our TOS grow and be used to counter certain undesirable conversations. As a result, without the proper context much of our TOS can be misunderstood.

Let's also be honest. How many people actually read our TOS? It's long and boring and without the history behind some of it, it is easily misunderstood and applied.

So here's the deal. Both JohnDB and I are asking for your thoughts and participation to start fresh with everyone having a say, and everyone understanding the spirit in which the new TOS represents.

Here are the guidelines.

Much like our current TOS, it will be broken in two sections. First is a summary, second goes further in detail.

1. All changes will be approved by the current Admins.
2. All submissions must include a very short, concise paragraph and include scriptural support as well as a detailed version no more than a paragraph.
3. All TOS should be in agreement with our Community Message and Staff expectations.

The goal of the TOS is not to restrict conversation, but rather how to guide the discussions that take place in a manner that compliments our Community Message.

If you havent read our Community Message or Staff Expectations in awhile, please refresh yourself to help us make this a beacon of light for not only Christian's across the world, but also to show the world that WE are deciples of Christ Jesus our King by the love we share toward one another as outlined in 1 Corinthians 13.

I will create a second post that staff can use as a draft for our final version.

SB,

I'm of the view that a Christian forum needs debate. These Scriptures encourage this:

• Prov 27:17 (NIRV) states, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

This automatically infers debate to sharpen our beliefs an behaviour

• Acts 19:9 (ESV): 'But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus'.

I don't know how Paul could reason/have discussions with the people daily, without engaging in debate. Or, am I off the planet?

I can accept the need for congenial debate but debate is part of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Saviour and defending our faith (1 Pet 3:15).

• Col 4:5-6 (NIV): 'Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone'

Therefore my statement for the CFnet TOS is:

​

CFnet blog discussions encourage debate and reasoning (Prov 27:17; Acts 19:9) with grace, gentleness and tact (Col 4:5-6).​

Oz

 

[ezra]

I'm of the view that a Christian forum needs debate. These Scriptures encourage this:

• Prov 27:17 (NIRV) states, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

This automatically infers debate to sharpen our beliefs an behaviour

agreed you can discuss and debate together .it does not have to be fleshly disagree respectfully

 

[Truthfrees]

SB,

I'm of the view that a Christian forum needs debate. These Scriptures encourage this:

• Prov 27:17 (NIRV) states, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

This automatically infers debate to sharpen our beliefs an behaviour

• Acts 19:9 (ESV): 'But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus'.

I don't know how Paul could reason/have discussions with the people daily, without engaging in debate. Or, am I off the planet?

I can accept the need for congenial debate but debate is part of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Saviour and defending our faith (1 Pet 3:15).

• Col 4:5-6 (NIV): 'Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone'

Therefore my statement for the CFnet TOS is:

​

CFnet blog discussions encourage debate and reasoning (Prov 27:17; Acts 19:9) with grace, gentleness and tact (Col 4:5-6).​

Oz

agreed you can discuss and debate together .it does not have to be fleshly disagree respectfully

awesome scriptures - amen

imo it kinda depends on what people think the definition of debate is

even scripture says REASON TOGETHER - to me that sounds like discussion - in depth discussion - friendly discussion

and the other scripture quoted said that when people were stubborn they withdrew from the discussion - so that sounds like they didn't want to debate with people who were not hearing what they had to say

in our society debate is known as a contest where one side tries to win over or triumph over the other side like it is a war - and this causes people to be unkind toward one another - and then offense grows and the community starts disliking each other

for these reasons imo if an issue can't be resolved by discussion - everyone having their say and then letting each person decide for themselves - then resorting to debate is pointless and harmful

perhaps if we use the exact wording of scripture - reason together - withdraw from reasoning with stubborn people - those kinds of words would perhaps clarify what kind of discussions God wants us to have with each other

 

[JLB]

But it will become relevant, and a useful tool, for all of us to make this a unique place on the internet. One where the Glory of God can shine ...

Yes sir!


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

SB,

I'm of the view that a Christian forum needs debate. These Scriptures encourage this:

• Prov 27:17 (NIRV) states, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

This automatically infers debate to sharpen our beliefs an behaviour

• Acts 19:9 (ESV): 'But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus'.

I don't know how Paul could reason/have discussions with the people daily, without engaging in debate. Or, am I off the planet?

I can accept the need for congenial debate but debate is part of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Saviour and defending our faith (1 Pet 3:15).

• Col 4:5-6 (NIV): 'Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone'

Therefore my statement for the CFnet TOS is:

​

CFnet blog discussions encourage debate and reasoning (Prov 27:17; Acts 19:9) with grace, gentleness and tact (Col 4:5-6).​

Oz

It is my desire that any discussion should be able to occur, and they need to occur. However, debate will not occur. Rigorous discussions, yes. But debate? Not gonna happen for some of the reasons Truthfrees described below.

It's pretty simple. If the primary reason a member comes to this forum is for debate, they will not be a fit and will be asked to find another online community.

It is my hope that every discussion would be focused on reconcilliation and uniting the Body of Christ. Gone are the days for this forum where witch hunts occur and the tone is hostile across the board where everyone's motive is suspect and every word put under a microscope that requires defending.

The world is looking in on us. We are on display for the world to see. I take that personally. I dont want the world to see our baggage. I want to show the world that even though we have sharp disagreements. We remain United thanks to the One who gives us life. We speak truth to one another in love. A love that is described in 1 Cor 13....always hoping... never condemning,condescending, arrogant, rude or mean.

Iron sharpens iron, and this is good. But when it gets forged into a battering ram to crush ones brother.... enough is enough. We will not be going back. Iron sharpening iron will mean two brothers well educated and full of Grace will come together not to argue over their differences, but rather, they will explore Gods riches as truth sharpens their minds and spirit. And they will grow in brotherly love.

We need teachers that know how to teach the riches of Gods glory. That wont happen if we are preoccupied with exposing our difference through the sport of debate.

We are called to unite, even in our differences. We've lost that...

This new TOS will take us one step closer as a community to move forward in a healthy manner where we teach one another, and grow as we encourage one another.

Your a smart man, and I have much respect for you. But you shouldnt need resistance to share your knowledge.

 

[ezra]

in our society debate is known as a contest where one side tries to win over or triumph over the other side like it is a war - and this causes people to be unkind toward one another - and then offense grows and the community starts disliking each other

for these reasons imo if an issue can't be resolved by discussion - everyone having their say and then letting each person decide for themselves - then resorting to debate is pointless and harmful

make every kind rule there is and it will still happen . we already have the im right your wrong just disagree in a respectable way iron sharpens iron the process is not easy

 

[stovebolts]

make every kind rule there is and it will still happen . we already have the im right your wrong just disagree in a respectable way iron sharpens iron the process is not easy

Iron sharpening iron is not in the context of proving another wrong and strengthening ones fortress of tactical words for the purpose of destruction to which they are aimed. It is within the context of building one another up in the riches of Gods ways. It is a mutual edification where both feed off each other. The result is a deeper understanding of Gods word as well as strengthening the brotherhood.

Sadly, that verse has been twisted to mean we debate to win by exposing the weakness of our opponents armor and adding to our own armor.

When we win by means of placing our foot on our brothers neck, is that really winning?

 

[Truthfrees]

make every kind rule there is and it will still happen . we already have the im right your wrong just disagree in a respectable way iron sharpens iron the process is not easy

unfortunately true - rules don't work as well as scripture - which StoveBolts has been encouraging us to come up with - so that our tos is actually scripture guidelines on how to be in community here-

 

[ezra]

Sadly, that verse has been twisted to mean we debate to win by exposing the weakness of our opponents armor and adding to our own armor.

its not twisted the spirit of debate is good my self i m not a big debtor i just say what i mean show where/what i disagree with

 

[ezra]

unfortunately true - rules don't work as well as scripture - which StoveBolts has been encouraging us to come up with - so that our tos is actually scripture guidelines on how to be in community here-

scriptures used for rules i rest my case

 

[Truthfrees]

scriptures used for rules i rest my case

well i guess i meant scripture used as inspiration to do what pleases the Lord rather than rules that say do and don't do

for example - love others and think of them more highly than yourself - that isn't so much a rule as an inspiring statement that can impact our heart and shape our behavior the more we meditate on God's statements

 

[stovebolts]

scriptures used for rules i rest my case

We are all subject to obedience to the scriptures. They should guide our thoughts and actions. As I said in another post, I'd like to see biblical principals rather than rules. Rules can be mitigated where principals require discernment. We all come under the scriptures, even me and the rest of the staff. I'm not above reproach or correction.

 

[Truthfrees]

its not twisted the spirit of debate is good my self i m not a big debtor i just say what i mean show where/what i disagree with

showing where / what you disagree with would still be discussion

i was wondering what people think debate is

possibly we are all saying the same thing - we just have different definitions of debate

 

[stovebolts]

its not twisted the spirit of debate is good my self i m not a big debtor i just say what i mean show where/what i disagree with

Our focus should not be in defending and proving ourselves. It should be in the spirit of seeking unity and truth.

You and others don't see what I see, nor do you have to deal with the things I have to deal with. Two brothers who are opposed to the other and you can feel he vile they each carry for the other. You reach out to them in a reasonable way to get them to tone down the personal attacks, and the next thing you know the staff and I are getting accused of muzzling the truth. Trust me, I've made my fair share of brothers very, very angry with me this past year, and it breaks my heart. It really, really does.

The staff and I have worked way too hard to bring this forum to it's current state and we are not going back.

But I don't want you or others to misunderstand. We need those discussions to occur, and it is my hope that they can. But the focus will not be about debate to win an argument and further divide us. It will be about hoping and working toward reconciliation by seeking common ground which is in our Lord, and the life he patterned for us that we might conform to it.

 

[JLB]

It will be about hoping and working toward reconciliation by seeking common ground which is in our Lord, and the life he patterned for us that we might conform to it.

Well said.


“Patterned for us that we might conform to it.”



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

i was wondering what people think debate is

The Oxford Dictionaries Online's definition of 'debate' is:

1. 'A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote'.

Synonyms include:

discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley

argument, dispute, wrangle, altercation, war of words

arguing, argumentation, wrangling, sparring, disputation, dissension, disagreement, controversy, contention, conflict, disharmony

negotiations, talks

dialogue, comment, interest

informal confab, powwow, rap session

rare velitation, contestation

2. 'An argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved'.

The Merriam--Webster Dictionary definition of 'debate' is:

a. 'to contend in words

b. 'to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments'
Synonyms for Noun: controversy, difference, difficulty, disagreement, disputation, dissension, firestorm.
Synonyms for Verb: chew over, cogitate, consider, contemplate, entertain, eye, kick around, meditate, mull (over), perpend, ponder, pore (over), question, revolve, ruminate, study, think (about or over), turn, weigh, wrestle (with).

Example of a debate

This is a copy of my (Spencer Gear) debate with a politician in the ACT (of which Canberra, Australia, is the capital), Michael Moore MLA. He was pushing the euthanasia bandwagon. This was my side of the debate: Voluntary Active Euthanasia – a Compassionate Solution to Those in Pain? He presented his view in favour of euthanasia and we had a back and forth discussion of the issues. There was a moderator and 500 people attended.

You might be interested in the content of this formal debate, Euthanasia Yes or No? A Debate with Dr. Philip Nitschke and (Then) Bishop-Elect Anthony Fisher.

However, on CFnet, I'm not of the view that we are wanting to use the rules of formal debate. Therefore, I suggest this explanation for CFnet debate:

It is a friendly discussion about differing views, an exchange of perspectives, a disagreement, but always done with the spirit of gentleness.​

Oz

​

 

[OzSpen]

Our focus should not be in defending and proving ourselves. It should be in the spirit of seeking unity and truth.

SB,

I agree that we should not defend ourselves, unless we are attacked with falsehood.

If we seek unity and truth, as I support, the challenge comes when a poster is presenting untruth as truth. Is it the moderators' views that false doctrine should not be discussed/debated/entered into dialogue with such a person?

Oz

 

[Truthfrees]

However, on CFnet, I'm not of the view that we are wanting to use the rules of formal debate. Therefore, I suggest this explanation for CFnet debate:
It is a friendly discussion about differing views, an exchange of perspectives, a disagreement, but always done with the spirit of gentleness.Oz

your entire post is good but this part was excellent - yes that is exactly what we want - FRIENDLY DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERING VIEWS even when we disagree - but ALWAYS done in a spirit of gentleness

awesome post - amen

 

[Truthfrees]

The Oxford Dictionaries Online's definition of 'debate' is:

1. 'A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote'.

Synonyms include:

discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley

argument, dispute, wrangle, altercation, war of words

arguing, argumentation, wrangling, sparring, disputation, dissension, disagreement, controversy, contention, conflict, disharmony

negotiations, talks

dialogue, comment, interest

informal confab, powwow, rap session

rare velitation, contestation

2. 'An argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved'.

The Merriam--Webster Dictionary definition of 'debate' is:

a. 'to contend in words

b. 'to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments'
Synonyms for Noun: controversy, difference, difficulty, disagreement, disputation, dissension, firestorm.
Synonyms for Verb: chew over, cogitate, consider, contemplate, entertain, eye, kick around, meditate, mull (over), perpend, ponder, pore (over), question, revolve, ruminate, study, think (about or over), turn, weigh, wrestle (with).

Example of a debate

This is a copy of my (Spencer Gear) debate with a politician in the ACT (of which Canberra, Australia, is the capital), Michael Moore MLA. He was pushing the euthanasia bandwagon. This was my side of the debate: Voluntary Active Euthanasia – a Compassionate Solution to Those in Pain? He presented his view in favour of euthanasia and we had a back and forth discussion of the issues. There was a moderator and 500 people attended.

You might be interested in the content of this formal debate, Euthanasia Yes or No? A Debate with Dr. Philip Nitschke and (Then) Bishop-Elect Anthony Fisher.

However, on CFnet, I'm not of the view that we are wanting to use the rules of formal debate. Therefore, I suggest this explanation for CFnet debate:

It is a friendly discussion about differing views, an exchange of perspectives, a disagreement, but always done with the spirit of gentleness.​

Oz

​

as per the dictionary definition of debate we certainly do not want debate - because it is usually ends up becoming warlike - thank you for clarifying

 

[Truthfrees]

SB,

I agree that we should not defend ourselves, unless we are attacked with falsehood.

If we seek unity and truth, as I support, the challenge comes when a poster is presenting untruth as truth. Is it the moderators' views that false doctrine should not be discussed/debated/entered into dialogue with such a person?

Oz

StoveBolts will have the definitive answer on this - but i just wanted to say that OFTEN when someone disagrees with another person's / group's doctrine they end up calling it FALSE - which right away starts a war of true and false - the problem is this type of exchange offends people and causes offended people to STOP hearing what is being said - so in reality discussion is over - KILLED by calling someone's beliefs FALSE

so none of that kind of discussion is conciliatory - we want to share the truth in a way that causes people to HEAR the truth and then let the Holy Spirit work HIS work in the person's heart so that they LOVE the truth and receive the truth

so your definition of share all disagreements in a spirit of gentleness would be the way to address any disagreement of doctrine - including what some may consider false doctrine

but imo publicly calling someone's beliefs FALSE has already crossed the line of speaking in a spirit of gentleness

it takes patience and 10 times as many words to discuss with someone a specific doctrine - calling a doctrine false is lazy and offensive and partisan - what one group thinks is false another group may see as correct

from my experience when my beliefs have been called false it has been by people who misunderstood what my group believes - so the whole battle was a strawman from start to finish - and that often happens in claims of FALSE doctrine

and really what is our goal? - to share the truth in such a way to cause people to love the truth? - or to attack someone's beliefs in the hope we destroy their belief?

often when we attack to destroy a belief the only thing we end up doing is destroying the person or at the very least the spirit of unity and gentleness