Propaganda

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
O

oopsies

Guest
#21
Your other responses are up to you - to each their own. We will not agree on everything. But as for Romans 14, your response that you don't read that anywhere - that is correct. But it is also the same response akin to Jesus never wore sandals because it is not stated in Scripture that he wore sandals. Therefore, he could've worn Nikes or Adidas because it is not stated in Scripture. Is that a fair argument? I highly doubt you would say that Jesus wore shoes. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can both agree that Jesus either wore sandals or was barefooted and even the latter is difficult to believe. Romans 14 does not give all that info but from biblical history, we do know that Paul wrote that letter to the Romans and the Jewish believers to reconcile some disagreements. One of those issues in dispute was that the Jewish believers were telling the Roman/gentile believers to stop eating food sacrificed to idols. The Jewish believers felt that the food sacrificed to idols was somehow defiled, contaminated and to eat it was sinful. But the problem was that the meat that was resold at the back of the pagan temples is actually much cheaper than buying it "clean." So who is right? If you understand that the idol is a piece of wood and means nothing, then the food is clean and undefiled. Therefore, it is ok to eat that meat/food/whatever that was "sacrificed" to the idol. That was one of the points that Paul was trying to make. Simply stating that it is not found in Scriptures to destroy a point of view isn't a fair statement to make.

We are called to be peace-makers, not peace-keepers (James 3:18). Peace-keepers are the ones who say "well, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut so I don't cause any arguments to start up." Peace-makers are the ones who go forth and set wrong to right so that there can be true peace.
Now, I am going to make some assumptions here. If I am wrong, please do correct/clarify me. I do not want to be unfair to you in my understanding of what you have said. You have quoted James 3:18 as supporting Scripture to the interpretation that peacemakers should go forth and set wrong to right. In this case, though you did not say it, you imply that we should ban/punish a few individuals, and that will bring about true peace. So far so good?

Earlier, I quoted Matthew 6:38-41 which teaches peace by setting an example of peace. Turn the other cheek type of mentality. That passage is from Jesus.

Let's work from a framework. I do not fully know all your beliefs so it would be unfair of me to guess and interpret from the guess. So I will use my beliefs as a framework. If you disagree with my framework, then that's ok for both of us because the interpretation is from my framework. Fair? Ok, here's mine: I prescribe to the belief that the entire Bible is God-breathed including the Epistles which are written under divine guidance and inspiration. So what James, Paul, or any other apostle says is the same as what God has said in the Old Testament or what Jesus says in the Gospels. It is all from God. That's my framework.

So within this framework, we have a discrepancy. Jesus says to bring peace, we must set an example by being peaceful. Turn the other cheek. He lived this example and taught the example. On the other hand, you say that James is saying that to bring about peace, we must set the wrongs to right. We must do something such as banning some individuals - that would be considered acceptable action. But God does not contradict Himself and I take Jesus' words as always true. So, either...

a) James is wrong, or
b) James is talking about something else entirely, or
c) James is talking about the same thing that Jesus is saying

I think I got them all... but anyway, I'm going to rule out 'a' because I accept James' writing as divinely inspired - the Words from God. So James is either talking about something else entirely or is saying the same thing as Jesus is saying.

I have not yet done any reading on James so I will take this opportunity to do so to further our growth and understanding of Scriptures. Fair enough?

I have found that it is always better to look at the entire passage. So I'm going to read James 3:13-18. The first part of the passage is talking about the root of the things we do. We call it wisdom such as setting right from wrong or turning the other cheek. James is saying, even if you are doing something wise, there can still be some "selfishness" in the wisdom. I can say that personal entertainment has some selfishness but I can also interpret your need to ban the individuals as having a "self" factor too - you feel hurt/insulted/etc., so to feel better, they need to go. But at the same time, you can also say that it is for the greater good - the betterment of other members. It can go both ways. All James is doing in the first part is to highlight the minute differences in our motives. In the second part, he tells us what heavenly wisdom looks like. It is pure, then peace-loving, then considerate, then submissive, full of mercy, and good fruit, impartial and sincere. So now we have the verse placed in context of the passage. On to the verse we are going to study:

Verse 18 (NIV):
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Naturally, I have some questions. I want to know the entire truth and this is an English translation - which isn't the best in the world. For my study, I have decided to use a Bible encyclopedia instead of a commentary. I find that a Bible encyclopedia is less biased than commentaries. The encyclopedia I'm using is The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia revised for reprinting in June 1990 published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapis, MI. The general editor is Geoffrey W. Bromiley.

Some things I would like to know from the encyclopedia... what does the encyclopedia say about:

  1. peace
  2. making peace
  3. living in peace (peacetime)
  4. peacefulness
  5. peacemakers
  6. righteousness - since we are disagreeing on the method of bringing about peace, I think it is safe to say that we more or less agree to a general meaning of righteousness and therefore, unless you really want to read 3 pages of tiny print on the entry, let's just leave this one off the list.
  7. harvest
  8. sowing
Here goes... the encyclopedia has this to say (please note that I deleted most Scriptural citations due to length):

On Peace:

  • under the heading "peace" is found make peace, be at peace, live in peace, give peace, peaceful, and others. So we have items 1-4 answered in this entry.
  • "The concept of peace in the OT is most often represented by the Hebrew root s^lm and its derivatives. The noun salom (I excluded the accents), one of the most significant theological terms in Scripture, has a wide semantic range stressing various nuances of its basic meaning: totality or completeness. These nuances include fulfillment, completion, maturity, soundness, wholeness (both individual and communal), community, harmony, tranquility, security, well-being, welfare, friendship, agreement, success, and prosperity" (Vol III, 732) --- so we know from this that peace has many many many meanings and interpretations. What are some of those meanings and interpretations of salom in the Old Testament?
  • "Peace is often understood as the opposite of war (citations deleted)."
  • "Such peace can result from military victory (citations deleted)."
  • "Surrender is often concomitant with the end of military hostilities and is therefore an element in the resulting peace (citations deleted). But peace can also result from diplomacy (citations deleted)."
  • "Psalm 119:165 stresses the sense of serenity and contentment possessed by all who love (i.e., obey...) the divine law. Prominent in the OT is the teaching that God is the giver of peace in all its fullness (citations deleted). The prophets declare emphatically that God Himself is the source of true peace (citations deleted). Without a righteous life, made possible by God's help, no one is able to find peace (citations deleted)..."
  • "... 'peace' is sometimes invoked as a spiritual blessing upon another (citations deleted)."
  • "Harmony between God and His creatures (citation del.) and among His creatures themselves (cit. del.) is at the heart of the OT emphasis on peace as community. Such community results when people treat one another with goodwill and love, but no peace is possible where there is malice (cit. del.)."
  • "Whereas peace is found by doing good (cit. del.), its absence can be equated with judgment (cit. del.)."
  • "The use of 'peace' as a word of greeting implies a desire for the addressee's well-being in the widest sense."
  • "To die 'in peace' connotes that one has completed a full and satisfying life (cit. del.)"
  • In the NT... corresponding to Hebrew salom in the OT, Greek eirene and its derviatives form the dominant NT word-group expressing the ideas of peace, well-being, rest, reconciliation with God, and salvation in the fullest sense.
  • In classical Greek eirene primarily signified the absence of conflict.
  • In the political and military spheres, the encyclopedia says that the term is "used almost invariably to translate salom. Thus eirene in the NT has taken on the broader connotations of well-being, completeness, inner satisfaction, the contentment and serenity that derive from having lived a full life, etc."
On Peacemaker:


  • "One who seeks to end strife and establish harmony, particularly between oneself and one's neighbours" (733).
  • The word "peacemaker" used in James 3:18 is in Greek - oi poiousin eirenen.
On Harvest:

I am getting lazy... these entries are very long so I will only summarize them. You can look it up for yourself - it is available online.

  • harvest used in James 3:18 and Romans 1:13 is karpos - also "crop."
  • harvest was a most important season - so important that events came from harvests such as festivals and rejoicings
  • from early times harvest was associated with requirements with respect to God and mankind.
  • there are many different ways to harvest depending on what is being harvested
  • there are many rules to harvesting such as gleaning was forbidden and harvesters of grain need to leave a corner of the field unharvested for the poor and the needy
  • harvest was also used figuratively in the sense of end-times destruction - when the good will be separated from the evil
  • during harvesting season, there is normally no rain in the Israeli/Palestinian area of the world.
  • the harvest is determined by what is sown - the encyclopedia quotes Galatians 6:8 "For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" on the topic of harvesting by God's divine harvesters.
On Sowing:


  • "to scatter seed upon the ground for the purpose of producing a crop"
  • to sow can also have metaphorical meanings such as the "greek speiro... [which] in addition to its literal use for the planting of crops... people 'reap' what they 'sow,' i.e., what they receive back from life is proportional to what they have given."
  • there is also a few sentences on the Parable of the Sower told by Jesus in which one commentator says that the sower ended up throwing seeds on the pathway was not abnormal because in ancient times, people sowed seeds before they plowed.
Let's look at the verse again...

James 3:18
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Peacemakers are people who seek to end strife and to establish harmony between oneself or others. The heading does not describe a required method of bringing peace. Peacemakers are free to use many different means to bring about peace. For example, under the heading of 'peace,' peace in the Old Testament can come from military peace - to conquer brings peace. Surrender to a nation's military might brings peace. The opposite of peace can also be seen (in a military sense) the opposite of war. So a peacemaker can bring about peace by military means. There is no restriction there. The word 'peace' (salom) can also be used in greetings and blessings such as "Peace be with you" would be an acceptable use of 'peace.' But this does not imply a method of bring about peace and neither does "rest/die in peace." Those are more neutral forms of "peace." The Old Testament also has examples of positive methods of bringing about peace such as leading a righteous life made possible by God's help or by doing good with its absence as judgment. In this comparison, the absence of peace is judgment, it denotes a negative connotation for judgment. It does not seem to be about righteous and holy judgment (because holy judgment would be from God and God is the source of all peace). I did not look further but I am thinking along the lines of do not judge lest you be judged and plank in one's own eye type of passages and verses on judgment.

New Testament peace is based primarily on the Greek word eirene. This word signifies the absence of conflict. I did not look up "conflict" but I think we can agree on a general view as opposite to peace. To quote the encyclopedia again, "Thus eirene in the NT has taken on the broader connotations of well-being, completeness, inner satisfaction, the contentment and serenity that derive from having lived a full life, etc." Peace in the New Testament focuses more on the goodness of peace rather than a more aggressive form of peace. So accepting Jesus as our Saviour brings us a very good kind of peace that makes us effective witnesses. This salvation and forgiveness from God brings us a good kind of peace.

So while peacemakers have a variety of ways to bring about peace, the Greek word used in James 3:18 is oi poiousin eirenen with eirene as the root for eirenen. So we can safely assume that peacemaker in the verse is most likely denoted as something good and wonderful. Peace in the eirene-sense is a goodness type of peace rather than a military-type of peace.

Let's look at sow. Sow is to scatter seed for the purpose of producing a crop. I did not look up the word "crop" but I can say it is safe to assume that James does not want us to harvest a bad crop. Naturally, one would want to harvest a good crop! So, if we want to harvest a good crop (and keeping in mind that harvest in itself is extremely important particularly for an agrarian society), we need to sow. However, the Greek word to sow also gives us a metaphorical meaning in the sense that people 'reap' what they 'sow.' This is echoed under the "harvest" heading - the encyclopedia specifically quotes Galatians 6:8 to impart to us the importance of a harvest.

If we want to harvest a good crop, we must sow well and sowing means we scatter seed (in the literal sense but can also be extended to a metaphorical sense if we know what the "seed" is). James tells us to sow in peace. What does that mean? James could be saying sow during a time of peace. Or perhaps he can be describing a method of sowing such as sowing seeds of peace. We know what peace means in this verse - something good and wonderful but the encyclopedia (unless someone else knows fluent ancient Greek) does not provide a sense of time in oi poiousin eirenen. So it is easy to rule out
sowing in a time of peace. So can James mean sow "with" peace as in sow seeds of peace? Semantically, I can't read sow with peace any differently than sow in peace. Maybe you can but I can't.

Here is where we may split and disagree. I cannot see another way to read "sow in peace." Remember, either James is talking about something deeper or he is echoing what Jesus taught. I can only see that James is describing the method of sowing - sow in peace as in sow seeds of peace! What will happen if you do that? You will raise a harvest! This harvest is so good and wonderful that it is righteous! Since I cannot read a different interpretation that is deeper and more profound, then I can only come to the following conclusion:

Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:38-41 to bring about peace by setting an example of peace. Since the word "peace" in the New Testament is used as something good (i.e., eirene - unless it is in a military sense, then the word salom is used), it cannot be something in conflict or opposite of that. Opposite of that is conflict. Conflict denotes a negative connotation. So James is merely reinforcing what Jesus said. Sow in peace is to live an example of this peace (eirene) and then you will raise up a harvest so great that it is righteous. This reconciles the discrepancy. James is not talking about something deeper - he is agreeing with Jesus. There is no discrepancy with this interpretation unless you are able to provide an alternative interpretation that shows James is speaking about something profound and with great deep meaning that has nothing to do with living by example.

Now, with this interpretation in mind, let's look at what you propose. You propose that we do not just sit back, watch, and do nothing. You want something to be done. There are really only one of two courses of action: ban/gag (i.e., punish) them or set an example of peace. I say you propose to ban them but the nice thing about it is that you never said it outright - just implied it in a roundabout way because if you were to set an example of peace, you wouldn't have responded in the way you did to me. True, setting an example of peace probably won't change either cup or miktre's behaviour. But James never said who's a part of the harvest. Let's look at pickles. Her patience in her responses to cup amazed me. Such witnessing has changed my mind on using them for laughter and entertainment. Pickles set an example of peace (with great restraint, no doubt) and as a result of her witnessing, she's raised up something for harvest.

Now, I know you can respond back to me and argue on syntax but let's be fair because I've been fair - I did all the hours of research. Semantically, that is what you want - punishment. So you decide what to do. Let the Word of God speak to your heart. I am good with any decision as I've set my heart straight.
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#22
For example, there are two people who are arguing with each other. Who is to say that one is more right over another? You may break them up but that doesn't mean that any one will feel convicted. So there isn't true peace at the end of the day. You don't let them work it out, you intervened, and they end up hating each other. Who is to say that at the end of the day, they could've worked it out and have true peace
Interesting point, but I don't think arriving at peace has to happen one way and that the one way is to allow confilct to happen so that it can be resolved.
I do think that is a valid approach and I have seen it work among two people who finally worked out their differences and moved onto a much better relationship, but I've also seen it continue on in endless circular arguments that turn people bitter and angry and the conflict then spreads out and affects others.

My view on that is that breaking two people apart when arguing, like often happens here, is not about preventing them for working it out it's about getting them to step back and achieve perspective, and to realise that what they were doing was self-destructive and would have only led them to deeper anger toward their fellow man, you ask who is to say one is more right over the other, and that's exactly the point, in many situations there is no right or wrong but just the impression two people have of the exact same thing.

By arguing something that cannot be resolved those two people are using their energy on all the wrong things, arguing the details rather than appreciating that in the details is the true value of life, to let them continue arguing would be to allow them to go on missing that point, and it is a big thing to miss.

I think it is tough to know when to pull someone back from a pointless argument and when to allow them to work through their disagreement, both are valid solutions and I think there is no one way to be a peacemaker, there are just different ways work in different situations for different people.
 
Feb 27, 2007
3,179
19
0
#23
If one doesnt want reaction one shouldnt post emotionally charged threads that attack others. Just a point. I happen to love it here, the good and the bad posters. I've truly learned alot here and have challenged my beliefs, I suppose its just how you choose to look at it and if you dont like it I'm sure there are other sites more geared towards your line of thinking and beliefs. It is truly wonderful though to come here and connect with like minded individuals who LOVE and have realationship with the Lord!
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#24
Interesting point, but I don't think arriving at peace has to happen one way and that the one way is to allow confilct to happen so that it can be resolved.
I do think that is a valid approach and I have seen it work among two people who finally worked out their differences and moved onto a much better relationship, but I've also seen it continue on in endless circular arguments that turn people bitter and angry and the conflict then spreads out and affects others.

My view on that is that breaking two people apart when arguing, like often happens here, is not about preventing them for working it out it's about getting them to step back and achieve perspective, and to realise that what they were doing was self-destructive and would have only led them to deeper anger toward their fellow man, you ask who is to say one is more right over the other, and that's exactly the point, in many situations there is no right or wrong but just the impression two people have of the exact same thing.

By arguing something that cannot be resolved those two people are using their energy on all the wrong things, arguing the details rather than appreciating that in the details is the true value of life, to let them continue arguing would be to allow them to go on missing that point, and it is a big thing to miss.

I think it is tough to know when to pull someone back from a pointless argument and when to allow them to work through their disagreement, both are valid solutions and I think there is no one way to be a peacemaker, there are just different ways work in different situations for different people.
I would agree for non-Christians but we are (mostly) a group of Christians. So us leading by example as witnesses to disputing Christians is (theoretically) different than when dealing with non-Christians. But as you suggested, pulling them apart and letting them cool down is an option. So instead of a ban, perhaps a gag? I think vBulletin has that capability to gag/mute someone for a fixed amount of time...
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#25
I would agree for non-Christians but we are (mostly) a group of Christians. So us leading by example as witnesses to disputing Christians is (theoretically) different than when dealing with non-Christians. But as you suggested, pulling them apart and letting them cool down is an option. So instead of a ban, perhaps a gag? I think vBulletin has that capability to gag/mute someone for a fixed amount of time...
Interesting you think that because to be honest I think it is more neccesary to sometimes seperate Christians due to the fact that so much passion and conviction is often present during the argument, most serious disagreements among Christians are founded on something each person considers very serious, as a result things can get more hostile because one or both of the people involved feel as if a fundamental part of their beliefs are being questioned/misreperesented etc......and as people aspiring to be better it's more important to pull those in conflict apart and make it clear to them that they are heading in the opposite direction to the one they should be.

But I think the distinction of Christain and non-Christian isn't that relevant in this kind of situation, all of us are imperfect and will argue and in some of those instances there is no advantage to allowing it to continue.

But I do think a gag or short term ban could be a good idea, but I understand the owner/mods don't have time to mediate every dispute and it's probably easier to say one strike and you're out, it's not like people are unaware of the rules, and in the end it's not very hard to be civilised.
 
Last edited:
O

oopsies

Guest
#26
But I do think a gag or short term ban could be a good idea, but I understand the owner/mods don't have time to mediate every dispute and it's probably easier to say one strike and you're out, it's not like people are unaware of the rules, and in the end it's not very hard to be civilised.
Perhaps they can install a vote thing. I've seen it before... members can vote to gag/ban someone. Basically, the members end up taking responsibility to keep the place to a certain standard.
 
Feb 27, 2007
3,179
19
0
#27
Or maybe they are doing just fine & the people who are banned are banned for a reason. They dont ban without kicking first.
 
L

Lauren

Guest
#28
Hahahahahahahaha. That's normal. Cup, watchman, and Miktre should be made honourary exceptions. :p If you ban them, we wouldn't get any entertainment on the forums! :D
watchman or watchmen? watchmen was banned a while ago
 
L

lil-rush

Guest
#29
Oopsies,

I'll be honest, I'm not about to read that whole post and try to respond to it. It'd simply take too much time, and at the moment I am more concerned with trying to figure out my craptastic public policy analysis homework that has my brain fried. I don't have the time to try and intelligently respond to a post that is long enough to be a 3+ page long essay. Maybe tomorrow when I have no homework, and can sit around dissecting your post.

I don't say this to be rude, but I don't want you to think I am simply ignoring you. My brain is just really, really, really fried right now.
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#30
Or maybe they are doing just fine & the people who are banned are banned for a reason. They dont ban without kicking first.
I don't know... as I understood it, there's no warning... if you're tagged, you go.
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#31
watchman or watchmen? watchmen was banned a while ago
Really? So that's why I haven't seen him post anything in a while... I wonder what he did...
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#32
Oopsies,

I'll be honest, I'm not about to read that whole post and try to respond to it. It'd simply take too much time, and at the moment I am more concerned with trying to figure out my craptastic public policy analysis homework that has my brain fried. I don't have the time to try and intelligently respond to a post that is long enough to be a 3+ page long essay. Maybe tomorrow when I have no homework, and can sit around dissecting your post.

I don't say this to be rude, but I don't want you to think I am simply ignoring you. My brain is just really, really, really fried right now.
I don't envy you one bit lol
 
I

iraasuup

Guest
#33
Guys, you need to understand something.

There are a limited amount of Moderators on this site, none of whom can be on 24/7. We have thousands of users, and thousands of posts. We simply can't be there to Moderate every post every hour of the day.

That is why we have a report post button. Many of you use that, and for that I thank you, but for those who don't please do. It's the only way we can be made aware of the inappropriate things being posted. Some things are no brainers obviously and the first available Mod will attend to it, others may be something we need to discuss, or monitor to see if the behaviour continues after a warning.

Contrary to popular opinion, we DO respond to these posts, and it's not a case of us allowing such things, it's more a matter of resources, time, money etc. None of us actually WANT to ban someone, obviously in some cases that is simply the only option, but if we can give someone a warning and a chance to change their behaviour, we'd much rather do that. Our job is hard enough as it is, without people discrediting us or the moderating decisions we make.

Frankly, I'm seeing an increasing amount of criticism being thrown at us, and honestly guys it doesn't help us any. So please, if you have any concerns with any member/ post or even a MOD... report it. We can't deal with the issue, if we don't know about it.

Hope that makes sense.

Katie :)
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#34
Guys, you need to understand something.

There are a limited amount of Moderators on this site, none of whom can be on 24/7. We have thousands of users, and thousands of posts. We simply can't be there to Moderate every post every hour of the day.

That is why we have a report post button. Many of you use that, and for that I thank you, but for those who don't please do. It's the only way we can be made aware of the inappropriate things being posted. Some things are no brainers obviously and the first available Mod will attend to it, others may be something we need to discuss, or monitor to see if the behaviour continues after a warning.

Contrary to popular opinion, we DO respond to these posts, and it's not a case of us allowing such things, it's more a matter of resources, time, money etc. None of us actually WANT to ban someone, obviously in some cases that is simply the only option, but if we can give someone a warning and a chance to change their behaviour, we'd much rather do that. Our job is hard enough as it is, without people discrediting us or the moderating decisions we make.

Frankly, I'm seeing an increasing amount of criticism being thrown at us, and honestly guys it doesn't help us any. So please, if you have any concerns with any member/ post or even a MOD... report it. We can't deal with the issue, if we don't know about it.

Hope that makes sense.

Katie :)
Sorry, I don't think any of us meant it that way. It just turned into a biblical discussion on what is the right action to obtain peace.
 
Feb 27, 2007
3,179
19
0
#35
I think the banning of trolls is acceptable and usually they are given more than enough warning to change their ways. Some are not here for Christian fellowship but to tear down the Christian faith & yes they are allowed this for a time to see if they'll come around but usually the ones who are banned I have the thought... ITS ABOUT time!!! There are a couple of exceptions but I'm thankful a few you've mentioned are gone as sometimes people read their posts and think that this is really what Christians believe when it IS contrary to our belief. Watchmen for one was a problem. This is CHRISTIAN Chat... People who come here are either in the faith, new to the faith or seeking information about the faith.... There are also trolls who are contrary to the faith and only seek to tear down our beliefs... I say BAN em. & yes I do use my report post button folks.
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
#36
Guys, you need to understand something.

There are a limited amount of Moderators on this site, none of whom can be on 24/7. We have thousands of users, and thousands of posts. We simply can't be there to Moderate every post every hour of the day.

That is why we have a report post button. Many of you use that, and for that I thank you, but for those who don't please do. It's the only way we can be made aware of the inappropriate things being posted. Some things are no brainers obviously and the first available Mod will attend to it, others may be something we need to discuss, or monitor to see if the behaviour continues after a warning.

Contrary to popular opinion, we DO respond to these posts, and it's not a case of us allowing such things, it's more a matter of resources, time, money etc. None of us actually WANT to ban someone, obviously in some cases that is simply the only option, but if we can give someone a warning and a chance to change their behaviour, we'd much rather do that. Our job is hard enough as it is, without people discrediting us or the moderating decisions we make.

Frankly, I'm seeing an increasing amount of criticism being thrown at us, and honestly guys it doesn't help us any. So please, if you have any concerns with any member/ post or even a MOD... report it. We can't deal with the issue, if we don't know about it.

Hope that makes sense.

Katie :)
I did not intend to criticize the job you and other mods are doing here. I realize that your job is difficult. Thanks for mentioning the report button, I will use it.

I think my biggest frustration is that it seems people are allowed to post rude, and even shocking post as long as they claim to be Christians. If they are unorthodox in their theology or honest about their atheism, they appear to be placed on a short lease.

Now, after saying that, I should mention that the short lease is much longer than every Christian board I have ever posted on, but it still sad to me that there appears to be two standards.

Anyway, I apologize for voicing my frustration.
 
Last edited:
I

iraasuup

Guest
#37
Well, no one is allowed to post offensive or abusive posts, Christian or not.

The problem is sometimes the situation is more complex then it appears on the surface, and so as Mods we need to review the entire situation and make the most relevant decision.

Also, sometimes when people are on a posting rampage and constantly posting things that upset others (like in our busy periods), we get inundated with reports. To all other members it appears we as mods are doing nothing, and so therefore the opinion that this behaviour is tolerated is wrongly implied. The fact is, we aren't always online, we all live on opposite sides of the globe, in different timezones, we also have other jobs and lives outside of CC. This Moderating job is voluntary and we just can't be there to jump on every request as they happen. We also have to deal with more than one problem at once. We are quite often addressing chat mails, reviewing reported posts, trying to gather all the info on a situation and modding the chat room at the same time. It can be a tad overwhelming at times.

I understand your frustration, it frustrates us as well, but we are doing our very best. It appears to you that there are two standards, but the fact is things as they seem to you on the surface are not always what they seem. There are things going on behind the scenes in every scenario. Believe me there is a short leash on this board when it is required, but I can guarantee you we don't have double standards, and NO ONE is allowed to offend/abuse another member. Everyone just needs to understand we are doing the very best we can with what we have, which means we can't answer every complaint instantly.
Sometimes when dealing with multiple issues we have to prioritise. I understand your concern, but voicing your opinions in a negative way towards the admin of this site doesn't help any.

Does that make sense?
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
#38
Well, no one is allowed to post offensive or abusive posts, Christian or not.

The problem is sometimes the situation is more complex then it appears on the surface, and so as Mods we need to review the entire situation and make the most relevant decision.

Also, sometimes when people are on a posting rampage and constantly posting things that upset others (like in our busy periods), we get inundated with reports. To all other members it appears we as mods are doing nothing, and so therefore the opinion that this behaviour is tolerated is wrongly implied. The fact is, we aren't always online, we all live on opposite sides of the globe, in different timezones, we also have other jobs and lives outside of CC. This Moderating job is voluntary and we just can't be there to jump on every request as they happen. We also have to deal with more than one problem at once. We are quite often addressing chat mails, reviewing reported posts, trying to gather all the info on a situation and modding the chat room at the same time. It can be a tad overwhelming at times.

I understand your frustration, it frustrates us as well, but we are doing our very best. It appears to you that there are two standards, but the fact is things as they seem to you on the surface are not always what they seem. There are things going on behind the scenes in every scenario. Believe me there is a short leash on this board when it is required, but I can guarantee you we don't have double standards, and NO ONE is allowed to offend/abuse another member. Everyone just needs to understand we are doing the very best we can with what we have, which means we can't answer every complaint instantly.
Sometimes when dealing with multiple issues we have to prioritise. I understand your concern, but voicing your opinions in a negative way towards the admin of this site doesn't help any.

Does that make sense?
I understand, and I hope you see that I am apologizing.
 
I

iraasuup

Guest
#39
Yes yes, I see.

Just wanted to clarify :)
 
L

lil-rush

Guest
#40
Your other responses are up to you - to each their own. We will not agree on everything. But as for Romans 14, your response that you don't read that anywhere - that is correct. But it is also the same response akin to Jesus never wore sandals because it is not stated in Scripture that he wore sandals. Therefore, he could've worn Nikes or Adidas because it is not stated in Scripture. Is that a fair argument? I highly doubt you would say that Jesus wore shoes. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can both agree that Jesus either wore sandals or was barefooted and even the latter is difficult to believe. Romans 14 does not give all that info but from biblical history, we do know that Paul wrote that letter to the Romans and the Jewish believers to reconcile some disagreements. One of those issues in dispute was that the Jewish believers were telling the Roman/gentile believers to stop eating food sacrificed to idols. The Jewish believers felt that the food sacrificed to idols was somehow defiled, contaminated and to eat it was sinful. But the problem was that the meat that was resold at the back of the pagan temples is actually much cheaper than buying it "clean." So who is right? If you understand that the idol is a piece of wood and means nothing, then the food is clean and undefiled. Therefore, it is ok to eat that meat/food/whatever that was "sacrificed" to the idol. That was one of the points that Paul was trying to make. Simply stating that it is not found in Scriptures to destroy a point of view isn't a fair statement to make.
By "I don't see that in Romans 14" I mean I don't see that interpretation. I read Romans 14, I see verses about dealing with eating, but I don't think the point of the scripture is to say it is alright to eat pagan food, and frankly I don't think that is what Paul was trying to say. God does not change. If He was offended by pagan stuff in the OT, He would still be offended by it in the NT. God isn't going to change His mind and suddenly say "Oh, it's okay for you to eat food that was sacrificed to pagan gods now."

I wasn't trying to destroy a point of view. I was simply ignoring it, because I didn't see the correlation between your example and Romans 14.

Now, I am going to make some assumptions here. If I am wrong, please do correct/clarify me. I do not want to be unfair to you in my understanding of what you have said. You have quoted James 3:18 as supporting Scripture to the interpretation that peacemakers should go forth and set wrong to right. In this case, though you did not say it, you imply that we should ban/punish a few individuals, and that will bring about true peace. So far so good?
I really only brought up James 3:18, because the peacemakers vs peacekeepers example was used while I was at a James bible study a while back. Whether it was the right use of the word "peace" in that exact context, I don't know. We didn't exactly stay on topic at the Bible study, but I don't see anything wrong with getting sidetrack at a Bible study as long as it's still the Bible you're studying.

Earlier, I quoted Matthew 6:38-41 which teaches peace by setting an example of peace. Turn the other cheek type of mentality. That passage is from Jesus.
The thing is, I think the type of peace I was talking about and the type of peace mentioned in this verse can co-exist.

Matthew 5:38-42 doesn't really fit when it comes to being a peacemaker, because it's not the same thing. A peacemaker is someone who sees a problem, and instead of ignoring it, goes out to fix it. Jesus was a peacemaker. He saw things were horribly wrong, so He came down to earth and fixed things. Being a peacemaker can cause a stir, but this does not mean a person is fitting or anything of the sort.

When it comes to Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus is not asking us to accept all the wrong in the world. This scripture is not a call for Christians to turn a blind eye to wrong, sin, injustice, etc. This is telling us that we do not need to look for vengeance. Jesus is saying that instead of fighting someone back when they do us wrong, be forgiving instead, be merciful.

I am not talking about this sort of thing when I say we should be peacemakers. I am not saying that when someone sues you, to turn around and counter-sue them. I am not saying when someone slaps you on the cheek to slap them back. I am saying that to have peace you must make peace. When I argue with my sister, we don't make peace by ignoring eachother and pretending the argument never happened. That is keeping the peace, sure. When I stay silent after an argument, I keep the peace by not bringing it back up, but I'm not making peace. Inside I am still in turmoil over the argument. I am still feeling wronged, and confused, and I am not at peace with myself or my sister. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

Likewise, by ignoring people on chat, we are not making peace. We are simply keeping it. By confronting these people, we are not trying to start a fight. I am not asking that we slap a person who uses racist language. I am asking that peace is made by people addressing the problem, and looking for a solution.

Are you seeing the difference?