The Positive Discussion Only Forum


#1

Site Suggestion: The Zero Debate Forum

Create one Forum Department, open to all members, for the sole purpose of discussion with zero debate permitted, zero as in none whatsoever.

Perhaps call it the Zero Debate Forum and desiginate it to be used to discuss any subject that can be discussed at RO, for example any subjects that would normally be discussed in Faith and Beliefs, Politics, Current News, or in any of the open debate forums.

[Edit: The Positive Discussion Only Forum might sound more sophisticated! …LOL…]

Think of it as the Zero Disagreement Forum because, as per my suggestion, the purpose of this forum is to create a place where any member can participate in a discussion of any subject without having to deal with any disagreements from opposing viewpoints.


** Why would that be a good thing? ** Because it appears [think: Ignore button] that significient numbers of people get utterly sick and tired of what they perceive as pointless constant never ending friction and endless bickering back and forth, but they DO NOT get tired of posting and discussing subjects on posting boards, and would enjoy discussing subjects with their agreeable and like-minded friends and acquaintances in a guaranteed-to-be-totally-friendly atmosphere of total guaranteed congeniality.

The debates forums are always open to everybody, and so everybody can have the best of both worlds, they can go back and forth between “Heaven” and “Hell”, so to speak …LOL…

In my opinion, we have, over the years, lost many members who would have stayed at RO to post in The Positive Discussion Only Forum. There are many people that love to post their good positive thoughts, but will NOT argue their good positive thoughts, and do NOT like to have their good positive thoughts ctitized. Everybody does not fit the same mold. The non-argumentative people can be a great asset to RO.

Also, there are, imo, a significient number of “intellectual types” out here in Webby World that would be attracted to RO if we had a Positive Discussion Only Forum at least available to them.


Also, a lot of people search the web and read threads that never join posting boards, many of these people are “intellectual types” that love to discuss subjects ONLY in a positive constructive totally congenial atmosphere, they do NOT like the “debate” that they must tolerate in open forums from people who constantly drop little Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level snippy hostile one-liners into the conversation/discussion. If we had a Positive Discussion Only Forum up and going, we might attract and hold some of these types.

What about readers who are reading along in The Positive Discussion Only Forum and become tanturm-hissy-fit red faced and are just itching to debate. The message to them would be this: “We love debates here at RO, just not here in this one forum. If you want to debate the subject being discussed here, then go start your own thread on this subject with your own Opening Post.”


Rules.

Imo, there would have to be some rules that absolutely prohibited the No Disagreement Forum to ever be used to discuss:

(1) Site grievances

(2) Personal grievances

(3) Grievances against other members or “groups” either directly or indirectly identified, for example … LOL… a reference to the “Scumbag RINO segment of RO” is a veiled indirect identification of specific members here, and all we older members would immediately know exactly who was being indirectly identified. A safe rule would be: Zero discussion of any individual members either by direct mention of their names or by any indirect identifying references.

(4) Zero debate allowed between people who generally agree on most everthing. No “friendly” debates for anybody. The Zero Debate Forum means exactly that … zero debate … for everybody. If you want a “friendly” debate, then go to the open forums and “have at it”. (The logic here is that more likely that not, “friendly” debates do not remain friendly even among friends.) Besides that, if the Zero Debate Forum is created, it is the Zero Debate Forum and all “friendly people” were aware of that before they started their “friendly debate.” …LOL…

Imo, if a Positive Discussion Only Forum is ever created here at RO, the Admin. and Mods would have to iron out, with additional rules, the wrinkles and problems that would for certain arise with such a forum.


Also, imo, the Mods would have to subjectively decide if the developing thread was being true to “the spirit of the forum”, and they could delete comments or posts that in their opinion was not in “the spirit of the forum.” Imo, there is nothing wrong at all with the Mods doing that. Imo, its utterly impossible to have a set of 100% objective rules to make human beings behave and conform to “the spirit of a forum” (or anything else.) Imo, its humanly impossible to remove subjectivity from the moderation of any human behavior.

Imo, with reference to that last paragraph I just wrote, there would be some here that would “constantly push the envelope” and deliberately get as close to breaking the “No Debate” rule as they could get. Again, the Mods could make a subjective decision on the “edge pushers” and solve that little problem right quick.


Faith And Beliefs.

Imo, a Positive Discussion Only Forum would be a real positive asset to RO in the area of Faith and Beliefs. Christians could go to that Forum and start threads for Bible Study subjects or Theological Subjects and develope those subjects, without having to deal with the little hostile snippy one-liners or prolonged rants from hostile atheists or agnostics. (But again, Rule #3 would have to be enforced, imo. That is, no references, direct or veiled, to those “Godless atheistic scumbags here at RO” …LOL …

Likewise atheists or agnostics could go to that Forum and start threads titled, “The Brilliant Dawkins” and such like, and they could discuss and develope their atheist-agnostic themes without having to deal with any hostile comments from Christians or other people of faith. (Same thing here, IE Rule #3 enforced.)


Good lands! I just looked up there!! I didn’t intend to write a book on this, it just sorta flowed on out though. I don’t see anything I want to delete, so I’ll just let it stay put.

One last point:
I used the imo (in my opinion) a lot up there because I was sorta just “thinking out loud”, and also because I am aware that the mods, who have actually dealt with the seemingly impossible task of tying to moderate human insanity, …LOL… will probably immediately see problems with my idea that I do not see.

Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪


#2

I do not hold much hope for that. It is obvious that those who value education above wisdom, will always talk down to those who disagree. I personally do not want to share a no debate forum with eggheads who claim we are stupid Christians. I must pray for them, and care about their salvation with the utmost agape, but could care less about talking about things I know are true, that they ridicule, childishly.
Now sure, Faith and Beliefs could prove to benefit, but I fear it would morph into debate. Trolls would come to refute, or instigate and insult. However, I do not fear the debate, but rather consider that is could turn out to be pointless, in the pearls/swine scenario.
What we have here, is vinegar and oil. Young vs old, liberal vs conservative, intellectual vs common sense, etc. It will never mix, completely.
Good Luck, Jack.


#3

I would consider the complete eradication of Socialism in our federal government the most “Positive” and promising news for Americas posterity and the future of my kids and grand kids that could possibly appear as a Drudge headline, Liberals would view this as reason to leap from the rooftops.

Which I would also cheer.

Hard to have a “Positive only” forum when the ideas expressed would be viewed from a completely opposite perspective, the days of Americans having commonality at a foundational level disappeared when one group decided that the greatest enemy to our future was Constitutional Integrity.

We have only one course now, warfare.

We will either engage in it at the political level and quit worrying about sounding “nice” or it will end up being fought at the physical level when Conservatives finally decide they have had enough of being hunted like dogs by agencies like the E.P.A. and I.R.S.

I would like a “Take no prisoners” forum, faint of heart need not apply.


#4

I kinda like your idea, Jack, but I don’t think it would work. People would wind up posting things that they know would jerk the chains of certain others, and would sit back laughing at them because they couldn’t respond. And I really don’t think it would work even with those with whom we generally agree, because we don’t agree 100% on everything, and, although we can often discuss such things amiably, we could never get an “agreement only” situtation.


#5

I hear ya Tiny. I will agree that the longtime posters here can be quickly divided up into clearly identifiable groups, and I agree that they have almost zero in common and would not be able to find enough common ground to have a useful Positive Discussion Only study of much of anything.


My hope for The Positive Discussion Only Forum was based on the possiblity of a bigger picture for RO, I mean to attract some new Conservative thinkers that would appreciate at least one (1) No Debate forum department that would allow them to get away from the people that they, sooner or later, will come to classify as disgusting and sickening, or at least get away from having to put up with their disgusting and sickening Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile snippy one-liners. The Positive Discussion Only Forum, if set up and run as per my OP, would accomplish that.

Also The Positive Discussion Only Forum might attract many posters that have a strong dislike for constant friction, conflict, bickering, and hostile comments. These type people can make a significient contribution to RO as well as those of us who, sometimes, seem to thrive on intellectual battle.

I hear you on all that too …/grin … but praying for them and talking to them are two different things.

The problem, as I see it, is this: When regenerated (born again) sheep talk to unregenerated goats, they will end up endlessly repeating the same hostile words to each other perpetually in an utterly pointless cycle that will repeat itself as long as time endures. Satan and God don’t get along all that well.

Hell and Heaven are NEVER going to live in peace on this Earth (and not on this posting board either.) …/grin

The regenerated sheep and the unregenerated goats are essentially saying the same thing to each other here in 2013 as they were in 2009, and it will not change in the future as long as the unregenerated goats stay unregenerated.


And while we’re waiting for them to become regenerated … /grin … it would be nice to have at least one department Forum where their disgusting and sickening Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile snippy one-liners would be totally banned and immediately deleted.

** And remember, the mods could permanently ban members from posting a single word in just that one particular department forum. **

They could still read along over there if they wanted to, but the mods could easily ban them from uttering a single word in that one forum, if they repeatedly violate the rules of that forum.


And it would be totally fair. Same rules for everybody.

If some atheist wants to start a thread In Praise Of Dawkins, then the same rules apply.

All the unbelievers can all get together and praise Dawkins without any opposition from we Christians.

If I go over to their thread and post that “Dawkins has already disgraced his academic reputation and is little more than a hot-headed fanatic who cannot control his emotions and his hatred for the God that he does not believe exists, and you all are intellectually down below Dawkins level for praising him in spite of that” then my comment would be deleted and I would be admonished that I had broken the rules of The Positive Discussion Only Forum.

If I kept on doing that, then I’d be banned from that department forum for, say, 3 months or 6 months, or whatever the Mods decided.

Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

PS
Thanks for the Good Luck wish for me on this idea.

PSS
Imo, there are many good Christian people that would come here and stay here if they had at least one (1) department forum where they could go to post, discuss, and express their feelings and opinions without having their Christian feelings and opinions assaulted by disgusting and sickening Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile snippy one-liners from immature kept-by-their-parents snot-nosed child-adults types.


#6

Hi Susanna,

Yeah, I think its a good idea, we Christians need a place where we can have a relaxed discussion if we want one. See that bolded red paragraph
at the bottom of my post #5 to Tiny

The mods could easily make it work as I outlined in the OP and in my reply to Tiny in my #5 … Mods could delete the posts … they could just delete the entire post … and ban members from that department forum for 3, 6, 9, months or whatever was necessary to enforce the **Positive Discussion ONLY rule. **

/grin … We Christians do pretty good getting along together.

Besides, we’d have no choice but to get along in The Positive Discussion Only Forum because the same rules would apply fully to us, as I outlined in the OP.

Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

PS
I think it would be nice to have a deparment forum where we could do Bible studies as Christians (or talk politics) and NEVER have to put up with disgusting and sickening Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile snippy one-liners (or long rants) from immature kept-by-their-parents snot-nosed child-adults types.

And it would be totally fair because the disgusting and sickening Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile immature kept-by-their-parents snot-nosed child-adults types would have their own threads in the same department forum where they could discuss, say, the virtures of Madonna and never have to put up with hostile or negative remarks from we Christians, or from anybody else either, seeing as how the rules of that deparment forum would not permit it.


#7

Hi RET,

I am with you totally in spirit, but imo there are some “creatures” that are by definitive nature the “dogs” and “pigs” of Mt. 7:6, and when we agree to talk to them, just by agreeing to talk to them … we thereby pseudo-elevate them up to peer status, and also pseudo-elevate them up from their true definitive “pig status.”

Imo, the wise man simply does not agree to talk to pigs.

Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

PS
I realize each person has to decide for themselves which creature is or is not definitively a “pig” referenced in Matthew 7:6

I would never presume to even think of trying to decide that for any other man.

`


#8

We Christians generally get along together, but we also have some disagreements on doctrinal issues. Personally, I try to shy away from those, and if I do get caught up in one, I’ll usually just drop out of the discussion - ‘cause I know you’re a Calvinist and you ain’t never gonna be nothin’ else, and I’m a Wesleyan-Arminiun (sp?), and I ain’t never gonna be nothin’ else!


#9

I made a happy thread that I thought was very happy. :slight_smile:


#10

Susanna,

/smile …I never argue doctrinal issues with my fellow Christians in threads, I have learned over the years that threads are not the place to do that because in high percentages it ends up unproductive by turning into a war based upon anger/hot emotions.

I have read dozens of threads on Christian forums where doctrinal discussions turned into the hateful absurd. All sides eventually took the position that: “If you interpret these verses like that, then you are either a stupid Christian or a carnal Christian or you are not really a Christian at all.”

And that was after all sides had copied and pasted hundreds of verses from Bible Gateway into the threads… LOL … The idea being, “I’ll simply swamp you with verses and force you to agree with me.”

Of course, all sides ignored the hundreds of verses, resumed the ugly charges as noted above, and then claimed victory over their opponents.


Yes! Sure! Love does have an obligation to present the truth to people, but not in threads the way I just described.

Its impossible to “dump truth” on people in threads. Its also impossible to “force feed” people in threads. They will “bow up” and resist your efforts to “help them” see the truth.

How do you help people in threads to come to believe, ** that which you believe **, ** is the truth? ** … Answer: Imo, you have to point them to the water (truth), and then they have to drink (learn) on their own.

Let me explain what I mean:


I just bought the granddaddy of works on Postmillennialism.

It is Kenneth L. Gentry’s He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. It has 620 pages (547 pages of text arguments) It is packed with evidences supporting Postmillennialism.

I bought it because I was reading along in Keith A. Matthison’s great work titled, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology Of Hope and I came across this statement about Gentry’s work, “The most exaustive defense of postmillennialism available. Highly recommended.” So I ordered it from amazon, wasn’t cheap either, $35.00 delivered to my mailbox, paper back too.

I will put forth the intellectual work to master that book. I will very likely, over the next 12-15 months, invest 80+ hours of concentrated study on the contents of that book.

What about people here at RO that do not want to do that, and will never do that? (Neither will they read/study all the other works on Postmillennialism that I have read and studied.) Yet they want to “discuss” Postmillennialism in threads after they have merely “googled Postmillennialism” and found some “objections” to Postmillennialism.


So what do I gain by discussing, in depth, Postmillennialism with them? Nothing, I gain nothing. They will merely state their “googled objections” and dismiss my arguments, and go their merry way not ever knowing the contents of the major works that have established a solid foundation for the truth of Postmillennialism.

But if I can point them to the major works that have demonstrated Postmillennialism to be true, and if they will buy the books and spend, over the years, the hundreds of hours necessary to master them, then I have been successful at pointing them to the truth as I believe it to be.


(In all my years out here on threads, I do not recall a single instance where a serious intellectual type ever once said to his opponent, regarding a major issue, “I was wrong, your arguments convinced me I was wrong, I now hold your position on this issue.”)

Human beings, especially males, resist changing their minds on major issues.

Males set their basic beliefs by the time they hit 30 and will agressively resist anyone’s attempts to challenge their basic beliefs.

I remember when I first came across Dr. Loraine Boettner’s magnificient work The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, I read it all the way through,
and ** it made me so mad ** that I literally threw it in the ditch along side a country road.

I had the book in my car, and I rolled down the window and threw the book in a wet ditch and muttered “Good riddance.”

Today, decades later, I value Dr. Boettner’s magnificient work with the highest esteem, and would be very unhappy if I did not have several copies in my library.


Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

PS
The Importance Of The Accumulation Factor:

A book written on one subject, say, Postmillennialism, that developes the arguments for Postmillennialism over say 600 pages is going to present the accumulative factor to your mind, IE all the arguments developed in chapters one, two, and three etc are going to bolster the arguments developed in chapter twelve and so on, so that at the end of the hours spent studying the book there is a strong slowly-developed accumulative argument that is now formed within your mind. This accumulative effect, of reading and studying a 600 page book, is impossible to ever be accomplished in threads.

PSS
What is Postmillennialism ?
“Postmillennialism is the view that Christ will return to the earth after the Spirit-blessed Gospel has had overwhelming success in bringing the world to the adoption of Christianity.”__ Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.


** Afterthought ** for any interested parties or any possible future thread readers:

If you ever do buy the book I discussed in this post, be sure to get the “Third Edition: Revised & Expanded” edition.

Kenneth L. Gentry’s He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Third Edition: Revised & Expanded)

**Link: ** He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Third Edition: Revised & Expanded): Th.D. Kenneth L. Gentry: 9780977851676: Amazon.com: Books

`


#11

I just mentioned a site on A2E’s intro thread where there were Christians dumping on those who disagreed with him. I disagree with your “postmillienialism,” but it simply isn’t worth arguing about. Our church has no specific stand on eschatology; their view is, whatever will happen, will happen, and what we believe about it has nothing directly to do with our salvation. As a matter of fact, when the Church of the Nazarene was formed, there was one denomination that was seriously considering joining with them, but decided against it, because they had a definite stand on eschatology, and wouldn’t join with a group that wouldn’t put their view into their doctrinal stands.


#12

`
Sussana,

Here are 2 interesting New Testament passages about Christians who disagreed over issues. I put them here just as a point of interest, I have no great points to make about them, I’m just being chatty. /smile


The Apostle Paul Had A Sharp Disagreement With Barnabus.

Acts 15:36-41

36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 ** They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. ** Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.


The Apostle Paul Opposes Cephas (The Apostle Peter)

Galatians 2:11-21

11 ** When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ** 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 ** The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.**

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 **know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

**17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[e]
End quote.


Jack Note:

The Apostle Paul was right on that doctrine up there, and the Apostle Peter was in the wrong, and all this was demonstrated true as the Sovereign God developed the New Testament’s great doctrine of Justification by Faith through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

`

Cheers & Happiness.

♪ ♪


#13

The first disagreement resulted in two missions teams going out instead of one (and later, when he had matured) Paul commended John Mark.

The second disagreement was an issue which could have caused many Christians to stumble.


#14

Amen! Exactly!

♪ ♪


#15

Interesting idea(s) Jack. There were several ideas up there, but the one that stood out to me was a Faith & Beliefs discussion area in which the faith/beliefs are not up for debate. A place where athiests would not comment on Christian topics, Christians wouldn’t comment on Buddhist topics, Buddhists couldn’t comment on Islamic topics etc and so forth.

Would that interest anyone else?


#16

I really don’t know that there are enough people of various persuasions to make this practical. I’m happier with respectful disagreement.


#17

Hello JG,

I think to have just one Faith and Beliefs No Debate Peace Zone deparment forum would attract and hold a certain type of internet poster: Those who are totally turned off by constant conflict and bickering (which is what you’re gonna always have in Open Debate Forums.)

Imo, the question to ask is this: Are there enough potential Christian posters out there that drop by and read forums but never actually join (or join but do not stay) that would find a Faith and Beliefs No Debate Peace Zone Forum appealing enough to join RO and stay with us and post here regularly?

I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that question, but so far as I know it is cost free to find out.

People really are different! We hear that all the time, but we often don’t really believe it! You go to a cafeteria and you see a considerable number of pans of food that disgust you. You would not even consider eating that stuff, and so you assume that because YOU find those pans of food disgusting, that other people will also. But then suddenly you see a lot of people putting that “disgusting food” on their plates and eating it with great enjoyment.

Imo, the “bigger picture” on this issue is “future growth” and that goal would seem to require a forum that offered the greatest number of choices for the greatest number of people. So imo the real question is this: In the next 6-12 months can RO attract and hold, say an additional 25-35 Christian posters because they have a choice to “take a vacation” from the constant conflict and bickering (which they personally hate) and while they are on “vacation” they are still posting here in the Faith and Beliefs No Debate Peace Zone?

Imo, there are significient numbers of potential Christian posters that are NOT going to join and stay on a forum where their Christian beliefs are constantly attacked by atheists and skeptics using little subtle indirect snippy Sixth Grade Intellectual-Level hostile one liners. They just simply are not the type of people that will put up with that. They will leave and never come back. It is what it is.

A Faith and Beliefs No Debate Peace Zone would give them, and everybody else, a choice (people like to have choices … thats why “31 Flavors” will do better than “Bob’s Strawberry Ice Cream Shop” …LOL…)

If they get tired of Heaven (Faith and Beliefs No Debate Peace Zone), they can get back in Hell (Regular Debate Forums) …LOL…at the flick of a mouse. /thats a joke to make a point …ha, laugh it up!

Cheers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪


#18

See, I have many questions about about Christianity. They are respectful questions though, and not intended to “question” the religion itself, but to help me understand things about what a Protestant’s point of view is, or to help me understand things that I don’t quite grasp. I think it’s disrespectful to pop into a religious thread and start trying to denounce someone’s faith, or ridicule it especially.

I like the idea of kicking all the athiestic caca out of the religion threads. To me, my opinion, some just pop in to troll.
However, I don’t see that in other areas, other than religion. The way I see it, my belief is between me, God, and the Church, and if someone doesn’t like it, that’s tough.

As for a “no debate” area for other topics, I’m not really seeing that personally. Even between two avowed Reaganites, there will be some topics that we don’t agree on. I’ve never seen it done though, so maybe it would work.


#19

I really do not know where to post my questions, so I will just use this forum. How do I customize my account? In other words where do I go to add a picture? How do I
write a quote at the bottom of each of my comments.

Thanks,
Stephen


#20

[quote=“StephenGOP, post:19, topic:39505”]
I really do not know where to post my questions, so I will just use this forum. How do I customize my account? In other words where do I go to add a picture? How do I
write a quote at the bottom of each of my comments.

Thanks,
Stephen
[/quote]Go to user cp and then click on general setting