No Bible Scriptures?

Hey, I just saw the "new rules". And it said to "not quote scripture". I'm like: WHAT? You can't discuss Christianity without scripture?! That's nearly impossible, without scripture one can't prove their belief in one doctrine.

..that's like saying one has to talk about atheism without quoting laws of physics, or talk about the other religions without their scriptures. If you look at the Islamic forum and others, they get to quote! They have more liberty than us!

This section says "discuss Christianity". Well, one can't discuss it in itself without scripture! Why not do this in other forums as well?

This section was made to discuss Christianity, right? Why can't we do that? As long as we don't do it in other forums.

Also, is it not free speech if we talk about our testimonies? If we want to talk with other Christians about things that inspire us and lift our faith? Also, witnessing is free-speech, too!

Ah, but the atheists and people of other faiths get to argue and try to stir up trouble without any restrictions, huh? WHY is the bias against Christians? This is obviously a double-standard. Tolerance, free speech, right. Whatever.

Hey, if I get banned for posting this thread free-speech, do so. I don't care. It's one of my first posts in months, anyways. BAN ME, C'MON, get some hypocrisy right my way. I don't care. Might want to lock this thread, too.
I seriously used to love hipforums, but now I just get my free-speech boxed in. Bleh.

// the rant stops here.

I have spoken,
-Ryupower

 

I can talk about Jesus all day long and never qoute any scripture.

If you can't, its not time for you to take off your training wheels yet.



x

 

If you sincerely feel the need, I dont think skip minds with a quote here and there. It's been done without any disciplinary action taken against posters. but, if your post contains nothing but bible quotes, without anything original and new to add, therein lies the problem.

 

Is misquoting it okay?

 

I dont know why you would want to misquote something, or what the purpose would be.

 

Personal Agenda ... that would be the purpose. Skip enacted this "New Rules!" to keep the Christianity forum a discussion and debate forum, and not a tool for religious proselytizing.

Most of them in the past, before the "New Rules!" were never subject to discussion regarding the Christian religion, but were almost always dogmatic (opinionated) in approach.

Another reason FedUp was given reign over the Christianity forum, although his original agenda was something else, his drive to turn proselytizing into discussion/debate is what keep him going till his perspective changed. [absolute power corrupts absolutely]

The Christianity forum is for discussion of the religion, not for trying to convert people to christianity, and not for using the teachings of its founder to prove who is right and who is wrong.

HTML:

 

Also, I don't believe Skip gave the option to debate or discuss these "New Rules!"

I believe his statement in the thread was: Don't like these restrictions - Go somewhere else ...

However, talking about them is not cause for being banned. Not following them is (New Rules!: Anyone not following these rules will be banned). Doesn't mean that ever-once-in-a-while you can't use a quote to support your discussion. Does mean you can't use the quote to push your own agenda. One easy method to overcome this limitation is to make a statement and link it to a site (like I have done with the New Rules! linking). Isn't there a Bible.com or other biblical resource website online?

Discussion doesn't mean one person is right and others are wrong. So, to keep this idea within perspective, unfortunate as it is, New Rules! had to be enacted.

New Rules!: Don't like these restrictions - Go somewhere else to peddle your wares! It's a big Internet, and we don't allow those who support intolerance and the suppression of Free Speech in any way shape or form!

​

HTML:

 

Also if you just have to use scriptures go to Sanctuary where quoting scripture is ok. Just be reasonable, quoting the entire Bible every time you want to make a point, just wastes storage space that could be used for other things.

 

The whole point of scripture based fundamentalism is to take conscious thought out of the religion, thereby making it autocratic and totalitarian in its lack of free thought (when you control the thinking process you control the Individual, control enough individuals you control the masses).

Such are the principles of fundamentalism. When you set up a scenario when every question is answered by a scripture, and scpricture can answer any question, you set up cult philosophy - don't think for yourself, let the book think for you.

If you need an example of the kind of fundamentalism I'm talking about, watch evangelist Jack Van Impe (http://www.jvim.com/).

Every question he answers, every current event he talks about, he does so by quoting scripture. Usually just with a striaght biblical quote, sometimes just by quoting the book and verse (i.e. Revelation 7:12) without the verse's contents, and rarely if ever with his own commentary or putting the scripture in the context of the question.

Van Impe is a prime example of "book thought" where scripture is all he has to offer and is capable of nothing else.

I'm glad Skip has decided to do away with such thoughtless attempts at autocracy on the forum and is actually forcing some geniune thought and individual ideas in the Christianity discussion.

 

I agree...I do put scriptures into my posts occasionally, but it usually one that goes to the point of what I am talking about.

 

Cool. I don't think anybody has a problem with that, Don. The issue is when you get people who want to answer every issue with scripture and nothing more. It's good that hipforums is placing some controls on the autocratic thought free posts that do nothing but clutter the boards and reveal a thoughtless cult mentality on the part of the poster.

 

BTW, This thread and the new rules have given me an idea. Living in the bible belt I get a lot of fundamentalists trying to convert me with their srciptural dogma.

The next time I get confronted by one of the fundamentalist autocrats, I'm going to use the new hipforums rule in my conversation.

I'll say, "I'll discuss any subject you like, as long as you can make your points without quoting scripture".

I have a feeling thats going to be the quietest religious conversation I've ever had.

I'll keep you posted on how it goes.

 

I have personally used a few references within my arguments in the past with out problem. I do think it is still sad that this site can't seem to handle giving Christianity forum free speech but what can you do?

I don't see why people can't push a Christian agenda... so many others do (including political agenda's which skip isn't himself exempt from) if this is free speech those who want to should be able and those who want to disagree should be equally able.

As i said though this site can't handle it, it would seem to me that this stems from Skips personal disagreement with Christianity i don't think he can observe this issue in a stoic manner.

 

Actually I think this site does a pretty good job with free speech. Like has been said before in this thread, you can use all the scriptures you want in Sanctuary.

As for pushing a Christian agenda, it’s done all the time in this Site, It’s just that in the Christianity forum you need to keep scripture quoting to a minimum, although you can cite all the scripture you want. If you want to be free in your scripture quoting just move to the Sanctuary forum but still remember anything posted takes up room on the servers, so pointlessly quoting long passages of scripture just takes up space that could be used for discussion.

As I’ve said, and it’s just my personal opinion, I think this site handles it pretty well, despite what you call; “Skips personal disagreement with Christianity” and his not being able to “observe this issue in a stoic manner”.

Honestly, we may forget from time to time but it is Skip’s Web Site and he could shut the whole thing down tomorrow and yet in spite of his “personal disagreement with Christianity”, he has set up both the Christianity and Sanctuary forums in this Site, where Christianity can be discussed ad nauseam.

 

Because we don't need the non-thinking, brainwashed crap the fundamentalists are so notorious for. You rarely come across non-thought based ideology on the political forum, although there are a few socialist ideologues in that forum who engage in that kind of argument, they are few and far between, but even they are using some degree of what they feel is their own beliefs without resorting to mindlessly quoting the communist manifesto.

The administrators of Hipforums have not quelled free speech with the new rules, they opened the door for free speech to be possible.

Otherwise the fundamentalists would be spamming this board with mindless retoric and responding to every issue with references to their book which is their sole source of information.

If that were allowed to happen, and someone were to post a question like "Do you really believe Jesus was the son of god?" And the fundamentalist's answer would simply be "1 John 3:1; Hosea 1:10; Matthew 11:27".

That's not free speech, that's autocratic response.

As for pushing a Christian agenda, this isn't the place for it. This is not a propaganda board or a recuitment forum. It's a place for open debate on religious philosophy.

It's good that hipforums has decided to put some controls on mindless activity.

 

You keep repeating pretty much the same thing that seems a bit mindless to me.

 

When people don't get your point and keep rehashing their same old agruments, some rehashing of your own becomes necessary to make your point clear. Sometimes you have to reiddirate.

 

Fair enough, just keep in mind that some “Fundamentalists” may feel the same way.

Maybe it’s answering the same non-thinking, mind numbing questions over and over and over again that makes them seem non-thinking, brainwashed and mindless.

I mean after the 3 or 4 hundredth time he’s answered the question "Do you really believe Jesus was the son of god?" I could see him running out of brilliant off the cuff answers, then using the same pat answer he’s used the last hundred times and praying that someone come up with something at least reworded, if not new.

 

The fundamantalists are the ones approaching us, not the other way around. If they honestly want people to pay attention to them they're going to need some convincing arguments.

 

Actually I was just going on what you said; “If that were allowed to happen, and someone were to post a question like "Do you really believe Jesus was the son of god?" And the fundamentalist's answer would simply be "1 John 3:1; Hosea 1:10; Matthew 11:27".” And it would seem that in that case the “Fundamentalist” was being asked a question not asking the question.

As for convincing arguments, some people will not be convinced no matter how convincing the argument. Take for instance smokers, there is a lot of convincing arguments not to smoke but some people are unconvinced and still smoke.