Equal Representation on the debate board.

As a person who just reads and hardly ever posts, I have noticed the heavy bias as well. Calvinists always get the benefit of the doubt while the non Calvinists never do.

I have PM'd the webmaster.

Jacob.

 

As each are posting, it would be interesting to see if any "Calvinists" think the "Calvinistic" moderators ARE biased, or if any "Arminians" (or non-Calvinists) think the "Calvinistic" moderators ARE NOT biased. Why don't you all tell your position on the Calvinism to Arminianism spectrum while you're at it? And without posting evidence, how can we be sure this is not sour grapes? Finally, this would probably be better handled in private anyway. While you're at it, remember Tyndale1946 in your prayers. His wife has just passed away. Thanks for listening.

 

It doesn't bother me to have an Armenian moderator, is there one in membership on the board?

Just a joke from an ignorant Calvinist.

Seriously, I have no problem with this; I even have no problem with everyone speaking there minds as they see fit, but I understand there should be some semblance of order.

Who would you suggest?

Wouldn't we also need a moderator sympathetic to the view of hardening you espouse? Seems to me this issue came up involving the historicity of your view.

Maybe you would have time to do this, I would nominate you, Jimmy J, or anyone who has jumped on your wagon.

Doesn't matter to me. Either way I have been called ignorant, and alot worse, yet I have never complained to a moderator, I prefer to speak and answer those who will use such talk, if eternity proves me ignorant what have I lost or they gained. If eternity proves me otherwise, still won't I be required to glory only in the Cross?

Just the views of ole' frogman. As far as I am concerned you are welcome to have an Arminian moderator here.


God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Amen!

I haven't been really participating lately but everyonce in a while I come back on to read what's going on.

I've always thought we needed a moderator for each side. thats only fair.

I haven't jumped on any band wagons. I have'nt seen any Arminian disagree with Bills views on hardening (but then again I haven't read all the posts).

I think he has shown pretty well that Arminius taught his view of hardening long before he did, I guess you think he is jumping on the Arminius "band wagon"

 

Equal representation? With most the Christian world unfortunately anything but Calvinistic, here we have one small little enclave in the whole big wide world where Calvinists have half a chance to be heard and defend themselves - where we have an itsy bitsy teenie weenie advantage - and now the non-Calvinists want to take that away from us, too?

Just who died and made Arminians dictators of the theological world?

Hey hey watch us prance,
Calvinists deserve a chance!

 

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

In all honesty, I have a little free time and read everything here anyway, so I wouldn't mind doing the moderator thing if people really want a "true" Arminian serving as moderator.

 

Looks like it to me.

I have already stated that it doesn't matter to me whether there is an Arminian moderator or not, to translate this, I don't care if there is an Arminian moderator. In Frogman's literal hillbilly version: "uonto? awrite, drectly, youns can ave youns moderator, I ain't skeered."

Unfortunately it isn't my choice.

Originally posted by Ken the Spurgeonite:

Perhaps God has sovereignly chosen this brother

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It looks to me like Brother Bill is the big whino in this forum. Nobody complained about the small tactical advantage that Calvinists have in this forum until he showed up.

Seriously, I am all for adding an additional moderator for the Arminians. Maybe this forum will start looking less like professional wrestling.

But just remember, you Arminians, just because there is an Arminian moderator won't mean you will have carte blanche to unfairly misrepresent the doctrines of God's amazing grace anymore than you already do.

 

Aw, c'mon, Mr. Bill has at least one fan who is also in Texas who agrees with everything he says. All I can say is that it's a good thing I didn't drink any of the water when I travelled through Texas last fall. Who knows what theological views I'd have developed by now...

 

I understand. It was a long process but after leaving Texas it took about 20 years for me to go from being a Biblically incorrect Pelagian to being a Biblically correct Calvinist.

 

this makes me wonder if we don't also need a moderator who is a kentuckian by birth and upbringin' I thought this was a branch of the WWF...you mean it's not!!!....I'm outta here!!!!!!!!

Bro. Hill BillY FrOGMan DAllaS

 

I was in Texas with my parents in the early seventies, fortunately this was before I had developed the ability to choose to drink the water...whoo!!!

Bro. Dallas

 

Tyndale 1946,

I am more than saddened to hear of the loss of your wife through death. While you, family and friends are hurting she is now enjoying His glory. I know you know this verse but it is comforting to hear it in times of loss. She is ' . . . present with the Lord.' [II Cor. 5:8d]

 

Is alchohol all it takes to kill the pelagian error germs in the water? Not a very robust bacteria, is it?

 

Tyndale1946,
Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice. I rejoice with you in your wife's home-going. She is in the loving arms of Jesus, beyond pain and agony, beyond the grasp of evil, safely home. You too will join her again.

I pray the Lord strengthen you and restore your courage in him so that you can face the natural outcroppings of the separation with assurance that you are never alone, never without your comforter, never left to face the trials of regaining your singular identity while traveling without your life long mate. May the Lord bless you richly.

I've been single for a number of years now and though adjusting was quite difficult, with God's help, I am able to go on and keep on keepin' on. You will too! Praise God.

 

Yeah, or a good strong cup of coffee would even do the job. This post is in answer to npetreley's post just before Yelsew's

Bro. Dallas

 

Bill,

I believe you addressed this with me last week, thanking me for being fair in my editing recently...for showing a willingness to edit Calvinists. Why now, do you publicly complain about what you previously thanked me for? And after a number of days where no editing has taken place?

I have told you before what the standards are for editing: 1) Personal demeanor (personal comments or attacks); 2) Being off topic. The reason why Arminians get edited most is because they are the most frequent abusers, by a wide margin. I have shown my willingness to edit calvinists, as you already admitted. When the arminians stop making personal comments, they will stop being edited.

There are a few arminians on this board who I don't have to worry about. I engage them, I discuss with them, but I never (To my knowledge) seen them make a personal attack and to my knowledge I have never edited them.

If theology were a valid criteria for editing, then your complaint would be valid. As I have said before, I have no problem with an arminian moderator, if there was a qualified arminian. I really don't care because theology is not a criteria for editing. An arminian moderator will edit the same way that I do.

So in the bottom line, if you want to not be edited, stop breaking the rules. This whole forum is a violation of rules and should be deleted. Public questioning of the moderating is forbidden. If I were scared of it, I would delete. I have nothing to hide and nothign to be ashamed of. For all your complaining, and in spite of all my asking, you have yet to show even one time where I have unfairly edited a post. Telling evidence, isn't it?

My advice to you is to walk very carefully. Those with a history are watched more closely than others and are judged by a tighter standard.

Perhaps as well, you could tell us how many times you have been edited Bill. I think I know. I think you do. And I think it will show your complaints to be unfounded.