An observation and a suggestion

[ScottEmerson]

I am aware of one of the posts that was deleted in an earlier thread. The post in question drew attention to the fact that people on both sides of the coin can be viewed as unwilling to change or learn from the other side's position.

Here is the suggestion: Instead of deleting the post entirely, is it possible to leave a rationale behind the removal of the post? At another website (www.christianforums.com), everytime a post is removed, the rule that was broken appears in place of the thread, and, if necessary, a brief description of the reason for the removal is there.

I believe that such an action would be helpful to this board as well.

I would also add (free of charge, of course) that an Arminian-leaning moderator be added to the list of mods in this room. I would be willing to do it if need-be. If this is impossible or if people are unwilling for this to happen, perhaps the Arminian brethren on this board would do well and come to the Soteriology board at christianforums.com, where the debate is much more fair and balanced.

That is all.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The people saw the post know the reason why it was deleted. That is why I said "Deleted for obvious reasons." For those who didn't see it, it was deleted because it involved a direct personal attack. Usually when a post is deleted, the reason is given. You rarely see this because so few posts are deleted. Today is the first time this has been an issue in quite a while.

As for an arminian leaning moderator, I have often said I don't really care. However, it would serve no point since theology plays no role in moderating. I have made that clear both in word and deed. No theological statement has ever been edited. Even those on the other side have admitted that to be the case. Not one person has showed a place where I unfairly edited someone. Adding a moderator of another persuasion will not change the way that people post.

I have challenged the one or two that have complained to show some bias, some place where the moderating is unfair. So far they have declined either out of unwillingness or inability. Whichever the case, what they have shown is that there is no bias. The discussions here are moderating only for personal demeanor.

The post in question this morning was almost edited but then I decided that it would require the editing of 4 or 5 posts and rather than go to those lengths, I decided to make a general statement. The atmosphere had escalated to a point where fairness would have required a bunch of moderating. We are all adults here so I decided to let it go with a warning. That should have been sufficient and life should have gone on without a hitch. Unfortunately it was not.

The bottom line is that if something needs editing, then bring it to our attention. Chances are we haven't seen it yet. Communication always works better than complaining. If there are issues that need to be brought up, find one of my posts and click on the PM button beside my name and I will respond to it. I will not ignore it.

[ June 16, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Yelsew]

The point of moderation is this, that which you cannot do in an oral debate, you must not do in a written debate!

In a spoken, oral, debate you cannot delete words spoken by a debator, regardless of how offensive or inflammatory they may seem. You may remind the debator of the violation of the rules of debate, you may end the debator's privelege to debate, and you may end the debate topic, but you cannot delete the debator's words! They are irretrievably spoken! Yet, you do delete the written words of the debator here. I find that to be a violation of moderator duties.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The people saw the post know the reason why it was deleted. That is why I said "Deleted for obvious reasons." For those who didn't see it, it was deleted because it involved a direct personal attack.

That is just the problem that Scott is pointing out. You say it was a violation of the rules, but how can we know when you delete the post.

Here is the way I saw it:

Ken made a personal comment about ITNAC = not deleted

ITNAC made a personal comment about Ken = not deleted

Larry made a personal comment about ITNAC = not deleted

Bill said to Larry's personal comment, "Hi kettle, I'm pot and your black." = deleted and replace with a public rebuke

So, lets review. Everyone, including the moderator, made some personal comments about others but only the one who made a personal comment about the moderator was deleted. Sounds like he is willing to dish it out but he is not willing to take it to me.

Interesting.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You misunderstand the rules of moderation on the BaptistBoard. This is a Christian board and people are expected to comport themselves in a manner consistent with that. This is not a free for all. The rules are no different today then they were yesterday or last week or last year. These rules have always been there and they have always been enforced.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
The point of moderation is this, that which you cannot do in an oral debate, you must not do in a written debate!

In a spoken, oral, debate you cannot delete words spoken by a debator, regardless of how offensive or inflammatory they may seem. You may remind the debator of the violation of the rules of debate, you may end the debator's privelege to debate, and you may end the debate topic, but you cannot delete the debator's words! They are irretrievably spoken! Yet, you do delete the written words of the debator here. I find that to be a violation of moderator duties.

I totally agree. The only time I think words should be deleted is if there is inappropriate language used that must be edited for content such as using God's name in vain or cussing. This should result in deletion and suspension. Otherwise there is no recourse for the one who is deleted. Moderators who delete posts leave people thinking that someone said something really bad but no one knows for sure because its gone. If the comment really wasn't bad or against the rules there is no defense because the evidence is gone.

 

[tyndale1946]

Brethren... You have a fair deal in the moderation... There are not two Calvinist moderating... Pastor Larry is a Calvinist and I am a Primitive Baptist. I and Pastor Larry have been fair to ALL here and have let others express their opinions and beliefs no matter how far off the beaten path they were.

Now you know what Calvinist believe and you are free to see what Primitive Baptist believe at pbo.org. I do not edit anyones thoughts or opinions unless it borders on the insults of others... There will be no name calling or attacking another brother because you disagree with him. I don't agree with all of Pastor Larry's beliefs but him and I can debate doctrine using doctrine and doctrine alone in the debate.

Arminius and Calvin just set up a system according to how they interpreted the scriptures and one is Arminian and the other is Calvinism. Our theology should not be by these men but our doctrine and belief should be used as the measuring stick to measure true or false what these men said. The Bereans searched the scriptures daily when Paul spoke are we any different?... I feel we are doing a good job and if you are really upset email the webmaster as we work for him!... Only he can change the moderation crew! That is my observation and suggestion

... Brother Glen

 

[Istherenotacause]

Now Brother Glen, everything I said to anyone was in a mocking and sarcastic manner w/o any insult intended. I expect those who participate in a debate of this degree to be mature enough to realize that, just as I belive and expect all others to be mature enough not to continually "hash" out grievences at the expense of the moderators, no matter how biased they may seem to be.

Those who are biased generally are blind to that bias as we have all observed. Using the rules to enforce that bias is WRONG! I am not saying that is the entire case in point, but it sure looks that way from here!

(all in jest!).

BTW, around Georgia, the PB's are calvinists, so though you say you don't fully agree with Larry, I'll go even one more step and say as I said before, Larry is NOT your typical calvinist, arguementive, yes, typical, no.

again!

As far as everyone else goes, I suggest we all abide by the moderators rendition of the rules if we wish to continue in the debate. But like I told Bill in a PM, the webmaster just may be a calvinist and his view may also be biased, I'm biased! and so are you!

"Brother" Ricky

 

[Istherenotacause]

Post Script:

If calvinists want to believe they are predestined to suffer at the hand of an arminian, then arminians can look at a calvinist as the thorn in the flesh and God said, "My grace is sufficient for thee!"

 

[Pastor Larry]

Complaining about the moderating won't help. The moderating has been fair and even-handed. If anything, I have bent over backwards to several arminians to appear fair to them. That is my record and I stand by it.

There has never been any editing to control viewpoints. People who say so either do not know what they are talking about or are misleading others. There is no desire on my part to do that. So long as I am moderator, there never will be any editing to control viewpoints. You can say all you want about another person's post or their topic. You may not talk about other people. My comments directed to ITNAC were direct and pointed since several previous indirect statements had been ignored. I sincerely hope that ITNAC will take to heart what was said. It seems that he has, by his post above. Out of all that have posted here, he is teh one who has it right. If you want to post, then abide by the rules. They apply to both sides equally.

The occasion today stemmed from someone who was uninvolved making personal attacks. Bill was wrong in his approach. As I told him, had he dropped it after my first reminder, this would have ceased ten hours ago and we would all be better for it.

The reasons why posts are edited are clearly stated. If you were edited, you generally know why. Most of the edits I have made have been people who said "I know you will edit this but ..."

The bottom line is that the rules will continue to be enforced in the same fair manner they always have been. If you wish to abide by them, then feel free to participate. If you don't, then participate somewhere else. Either way, this board will go on.

A final closing note to ITNAC, I am a very typical Calvinist. Ask anyone who knows both Calvinism and me and they will tell you that. As I told you previously, the confusion may come from the caricature of calvinism that you appear to have been taught.

 

[russell55]

A final closing note to ITNAC, I am a very typical Calvinist. Ask anyone who knows both Calvinism and me and they will tell you that.

Yep, PL's a very typical Calvinist.....

This might be a good time to point to this article once again: What non-calvinists should know about calvinist belief

This one might be helpful, too: A word to those who take it....

I find this forum a lot more fun when I don't have to keep pointing out what Calvinists don't believe.

 

[Istherenotacause]

Larry, you know I'm right and I know I'm right. The point is, this "caraciture" you're referring to is no such thing. Most who profess calvinism belive in the "tulip" theology and it is wrong. It is birthed out of taking the scriptures out of context and building an entire doctrine out of context.

If you want to hold to the calvinistic beliefs as if it has been believed by some since 70 A. D. then that is your choice. I'll keep believing the Bible as we who remain in proper balance between arminism and calvinism do and nothing will change that. So the best thing to do is quit arguing like a bunch of spoiled brats and just agree we disagree.

You or any other calvinist or arminian will not change me, I remain stedfast in the doctrine handed down through the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ. I'll contend for the faith that any and every man born of a woman can be born again of the water and the Spirit as Jesus had told Nicodemas in John 3. Whether it is faith received as a achild or faith conceived as a man on his death bed, I'll stand true to the Glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God soon and certain to come.

Just as Judas was numbered with the twelve and had every chance any man or even nmore the chance to trust in the Lord, I'll not refuse anyone that same chance to hear and belive on the Gospel, I'd be a heretic to believe anything else!

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

[russell55]

Just as Judas was numbered with the twelve and had every chance any man or even nmore the chance to trust in the Lord, I'll not refuse anyone that same chance to hear and belive on the Gospel, I'd be a heretic to believe anything else!

Most calvinists would agree completely with this statement......and so would most arminians, I suppose.

 

[Istherenotacause]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just as Judas was numbered with the twelve and had every chance any man or even nmore the chance to trust in the Lord, I'll not refuse anyone that same chance to hear and belive on the Gospel, I'd be a heretic to believe anything else!

Most calvinists would agree completely with this statement......and so would most arminians, I suppose. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah! Balance is attainable afterall!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Complaining about the moderating won't help.

Yes, we know. You all obviously have a dictatorship going here, not a democracy. Oh well, we tried.

The moderating has been fair and even-handed. If anything, I have bent over backwards to several arminians to appear fair to them. That is my record and I stand by it.

If you call that bending over backwards to appear fair, I would hate to see what you may have done standing upright.

You can say all you want about another person's post or their topic. You may not talk about other people. My comments directed to ITNAC were direct and pointed since several previous indirect statements had been ignored. I sincerely hope that ITNAC will take to heart what was said. It seems that he has, by his post above. Out of all that have posted here, he is teh one who has it right. If you want to post, then abide by the rules. They apply to both sides equally.

Larry, just as you hope ITNAC heeds your personal comments about your perceptions of his arrogance and unteachablity, I sincerely hope that you will take heed to what I said about my perceptions of your posts to heart as well.

Oh, wait never mind, my perceptions are not as imporant as your perceptions because you are the moderator. Never mind just delete my opinion, it doesn't matter anyway. :rollyeyes:

The occasion today stemmed from someone who was uninvolved making personal attacks. Bill was wrong in his approach. As I told him, had he dropped it after my first reminder, this would have ceased ten hours ago and we would all be better for it.

Yes, Larry we all know that you didn't want me to call you on the carpet for acting under a double standard. We get it now. You can make personal comments about people's demeanor on this board but we can't make personal comments about your demeanor. We get it!!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
Larry, you know I'm right and I know I'm right.

Whatever.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Yes, we know. You all obviously have a dictatorship going here, not a democracy. Oh well, we tried.

To my knowledge, it was never claimed to be a democracy. You participate at the pleasure of the webmaster. You have a proper means to discuss these things and you chose not to use it.

You have made comments about me before and each time I have taken them under consideration. However, in this case, you have not demonstrated an issue of unfairness or injustice. Your case is closed.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You have made comments about me before and each time I have taken them under consideration. However, in this case, you have not demonstrated an issue of unfairness or injustice. Your case is closed.

Wow, that's a fair and equitable way to handle disputes. The one who has a charge brought against him decides for himself whether he was wrong or not. Hey, I know lets start allowing our judicial system to run like that. We'll just let the defendants determine whether they are guilty or innocent of the charges brought against them. Oh, wait that won't work because they are not infalliable moderators like you. Never mind.

 

[Scott J]

Bill, Pastor Larry probably doesn't need my defense and may not even appreciate it. But such railing accusations coming from you are more than a little questionable.

Pastor Larry's integrity and willingness to debate within the rules of the BB are well demonstrated. You on the other hand have a notable case of not respecting the BB rules.

I generally agree with Pastor Larry so I will not deny the possibility of bias on my part. However, I don't see those who interact with Pastor Larry constantly having to start their responses with phrases like "What you said is not what I believe..." the way they do you. In other words, whether you agree with him or not, Pastor Larry debates honestly. You do not.

You take it upon yourself to state what your opponents believe in a way that makes your arguments seem more credible. You persistently use this debate tactic. For that reason, many of us avoid interacting with you or quit rather continue to labor against your methods.

One of the reasons I bring this up is that you are employing similar methods in these accusations. I sincerely desire you to stop.

 

[William C]

Scott,

Your rebuke is noted.

A few questions:

1. Can you please show where I have broken the rules of the debate board?

2. Have you read the thread titled "Strongs" to see Larry's continued rebuke of ITNAC? If so, can you point out to me why he is openly rebuked the first two times while Ken's comments are left alone?

3. Are moderators allowed to rebuke people because they are ignorant of the view points being expressed by their opponents? If so, where is the Arminian moderator to rebuke you and others who misrepresent our views?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bill