| Re: |
I think the big gov't thing is a bit overdramatic. There are rules everywhere folks, many are necessary and not oppressively sinful.
This is real simple: are multiple accounts allowed? If not, and many are getting away with breaking the rules and being deceptive and propagating their theology, then what is to be done? And can this be prevented in a way that's fair to everyone? You guys act like the very idea is voodoo administration.
If I didn't know any better I would think that those here asking for, at the very least minimal safeguards, were asking Musolini (Greg) and Stalin (Paul) to oppress the masses with an iron fist. Come now. What started out as a simple suggestion by Leo Grace, a dear brethren, to make it more difficult for some to deceive and attack the forum, has turned into a psuedo conspiracy theory. Give me a break guys..... this forum isn't going to start the next communist regime. The Big Brother/Big Sister stuff pertaining to the forum is just plain goofiness.
I agree. The emotional level of the objections surprised me. To me, it is a matter of taking personal responsibility for a privilege (not a right) to post in these forums before hundreds of readers everyday.
But then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The gut reaction to preserve individual rights and privacy is very American...
| 2009/11/12 11:46||Profile|
| Re: |
"But then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The gut reaction to preserve individual rights and privacy is very American..." Leo Grace
I understand but let's not project that onto a forum that is international in its scope, as far as those who access this forum, and let's understand that we're dealing with our own kingdom brethren here... not the government. If you can't trust a brother like Greg and Paul then who can you trust with these suggestions? Let's have some perspective and some common sense. If it's not plausible then that's fine. Again no is trying to revamp the website or reinvent the wheel. No one here is demanding some kind of superduper spy software that costs ten grand and can track me from my e-mail adress and link me to the serial number of my car thereby watching my every move. Sheesh.
I understand your simple intention Leo, and I understand that Paul and Greg aren't Big Brother, Big Sister, 'BIG' anything. I support your original concern which I know was done in the utmost sincerity.
| 2009/11/12 12:15|
| Re: |
I guess both sides of the discussion should be careful not to over-exaggerate the other. I by no means implied this was turning into a totalitarian regime and by no means likened the moderators to Hitler. And you are by no means asking for a thumb-print or passport number.
I will resign from this topic and leave it to the moderators to decide how they will like their forum to run and resolve to respond as Miccah has eloquently stated.
Respectfully, this is not a church. Brother Paul pointed this out in a different thread I believe.
With all due respect and with nothing personal towards your idea Leo, but if we start "playing church" on SI, my time posting here will come to an end.
| 2009/11/12 12:52||Profile|
| Re: |
I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion. Is the problem really that bad? I've been visiting SermonIndex for over six years now. I have occasionally seen some problems with spam posts, but these are few and far between and are usually taken care of very quickly. I'm not sure if this is in response to the possibility that Jesse Morrell and, possibly, others were posting under multiple accounts or not. However, I just don't see it as being that big of a problem when we already can judge the posts of every poster anyway.
The original idea on this thread suggests that individuals be required to post a "testimony" in the "welcome" section that is inspected by the moderators before they are permitted to receive proper fellowship. On the surface, this sounds like a great idea. However, it immediately serves as a possibly difficult "stepping stone" for individuals who might not be saved yet but who are still interested in learning more about a relationship with our Lord. Over the last six years, I have seen some seemingly sincere individuals here on SermonIndex who readily admitted that they were not yet believers.
Someone else mentioned (in the other concurrent thread about this topic) that SermonIndex is not confined to "free" nations. Greg once displayed a map (or maybe it was a list) that displayed the nations from which SermonIndex had been visited. There are individuals who have visited this ministry from nations that are exceptionally closed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we to expect these individuals (some of whom, of course, might also not even be believers) to have their "testimonies" approved?
I certainly understand the apprehension toward individuals who purposely attempt to deceive those who frequent these forums by secretly using multiple identities for their own particular purposes. And, of course, I think that we should do what we can to stop the "spam" from being contained on this website. However, I am also reminded that Jesus was often accused of being a "friend" to tax collectors, prostitutes and other "sinners" (Luke 7:34-35; Matthew 11:19; Mark 2:15-17; Matthew 21:28-32). The Pharisees and Sadducees criticized him for this. Jesus replied that it is, after all, the sick who need a doctor (Mark 2:17). The disciples also tried to prevent or make it difficult for little children to come to Jesus (Matthew 19:13-15). In fact, it seems like "sinners" were attracted to the Gospel message presented by Jesus and the apostles far more than the "righteous." I just feel a little concern that some of these sincere attempts to help might actually serve to impede the work of Christ in the forums.
My wife and I are already praying for Brother Greg and the moderators in their decisions. The messages and even forum interaction on SermonIndex has played a wonderful role in our lives (and mine in particular). There are plenty of possible solutions to consider if this problem is deemed so great that it warrants some sort of intervention. Like brother Paul West said, this website is not a Church. It is a forum. As such, there is a open ability for discussions. There are individuals from different backgrounds and sectarian persuasion in (and out) of Christianity. While we might be readily concerned about those supposed "wolves" who might come into the forum and create dissension through a particular purpose or agenda, it seems to me that some of the greatest dissension originated from members who were somewhat more seasoned.
Again, I am praying for Greg and the other moderators in this regard. I have been encouraged, challenged, strengthened and matured in the faith through the messages found on SermonIndex. In addition, I have been similarly blessed by many of the conversations here in the forums. Even though we often do not totally agree on every matter under the sun, I believe that there is a very real love for one another between most of the believers who frequent the forums.
| 2009/11/12 13:04||Profile|
| Re: |
"I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion. Is the problem really that bad?" cccchhhrrrisss
I disagree. Leo asked a simple question to start this. Where is the emotionalism on the other end tantamount to the macrocosm of Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Gov't??? A simple suggestion was turned into a philosophical and theoretical debate and was taken too far. Brothertom, who has been here quite along time himself, had the same observation of Leo about this. So, where's the philosophical parallel on this thread from those who support the original premise to those who take this to the point of psuedo oppression, invasion of privacy, and big brother, if looked into?? There might be some hostility towards those who attack the forum under multiple accounts but there's no overemotion to ask about rules and preventative safeguards. If it wasn't that bad lately then it wouldn't have been brought up by Greg himself addressing the specific concern of Leo and others and asking us to e-mail him with any suspicions of such abuses. So, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask for a preventative method here, especially if the moderators are going to ask for reactionary involvement on the other side via e-mail.
| 2009/11/12 13:39|
| Re: |
Hi brother ccrider...
I disagree. Leo asked a simple question to start this. Where is the emotionalism on the other end tantamount to the macrocosm of Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Gov't??? A simple suggestion was turned into a philosophical and theoretical debate and was taken too far.
I think that you misunderstood the purpose of my last post. You, Leo, Brothertom and anyone else are fully entitled to suggest alternatives to "fix" whatever problem that this forum may (or may not) have. However, my post was meant only to question whether or not there is such a major problem there merits the need of such an immediate and dire resolution. In addition, I simply wanted to remind each of us that there are certain side effects that each of the introduced suggestions could have.
Ultimately, the decision to "change" anything on this website lay with Greg and the direction to which he feels the Lord leading him. To this end, my wife and I are praying that the Lord's will be done. I just wonder if the current suggestions would truly "fix" the underlying problem. I also wonder whether or not the problem is truly that big or widespread as to deem something like this to be necessary. Again, this is Greg's decision as he relies upon hearing God for direction. I think that we can agree to pray Greg in regard to this direction.
| 2009/11/12 14:26||Profile|
| Re: |
Sorry about that brother cccchhhhrrrisss.
"You, Leo, Brothertom and anyone else are fully entitled to suggest alternatives to "fix" whatever problem that this forum may (or may not) have. However, my post was meant only to question whether or not there is such a major problem there merits the need of such an immediate and dire resolution. In addition, I simply wanted to remind each of us that there are certain side effects that each of the introduced suggestions could have." cccchhhrrrisss
Agreed, that is a reasonable and gracious response. Thanks.
| 2009/11/12 14:31|
East TN (for now)
| Re: stinks |
I am also somewhat surprised, but at the voices of support for this particular notion.
Me too buddy; just as surprised as you are! I thought this thread would go away on it"s own but it just keeps getting bigger and bigger with ideas that the owner never even asked for!
Being the Libertarian that I am, the whole idea smacks of government intervention, which I definitely do not think we need.
There, that was my two bucks worth!
God bless you all!
| 2009/11/12 14:43||Profile|
| Re: |
"Being the Libertarian that I am, the whole idea smacks of government intervention, which I definitely do not think we need." lysa
How do you compare this to government intervention? How is Leo's suggestion to the entity of the forum comparabel to the 'smackness' of government intervention? How does it smack?
| 2009/11/12 14:47|
| Re: |
It is bringing in the law when we are to rely on the Spirit - it is an attempt to put SermonIndex back under the law. If we rely upon the law for correction, then we become subject to that law. It is by prayer that these things are to be corrected - prayer and supplication.
| 2009/11/12 15:01||Profile|