A Request of Site Authorities about Member Forthcomingness

There's a difference between being a baptist and one's congregational affiliation. For several years, I attended a nondenom church that was not identified as baptist. That did not, however, make me "not baptist". So we need to tread lightly over accusing someone of "not being baptist".

Further, there's a certain concern over anonymity. Several years ago, when I attended a larger SBC church, someone from this board sought me out. That's simply unacceptible. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy and anonymity here, and I'd prefer that such an expectation be preserved.

Lastly, I'm concerned over moderators having to verify peoples' information. The job of a moderator is hard enough without having to be "integrity police".

 

what confuses me, is that I'm members of more than one Christian message board and sure, members are banned all the time, but their moderators do their job...moderate the discussions by keep them on track and ensuring the topics are what's debated. The BB is the only one that seems to have this secretive issue.

The "Baptist Only" sections don't concern me...I may take a gander and laugh, but if something catches my eye, I'll copy part of the Thread and post it in the "Other Christian Denominations" and begin the discussion.

Obviously, if one starts to post that salvation is only found in their particular faith and if you don't join their faith, you are lost, then that person needs to be banned.

BUT, if a Roman Catholic, Church of Christ, Anglican or Orthodox is simply defending their theology and presenting their theology in a way to engage one into thinking...hey, maybe I've been mistaken about this...and some along the way make the jump to a different faith, then so be it...that's not a reason to ban members.

In XC
-

 

A more accurate statement would be "If you are a member of a nonbaptist church, then you are not a Baptist". A Baptist simply attenting a nonbaptist church does not disqualify that person from being a Baptist.

 

Agree with the request.

On the other hand, the one who pays the piper names the tune. The board owners pay the piper.

 

So if a Roman Catholic comes to a Baptist church, is that person no longer Roman Catholic?

 

I believe it's more to it than that....but, charge for a membership and problem solved...there's tons of Free Christian Message Boards that don't seems to have the problems as outlined here.

In XC
-

 

What the dishonesty, lies? Are you saying these are Catholics and CofC? I really wouldn't know. but why would a christian purposely lie about who they are, for what, for an internet message board they compromise their faith?

 

It does seem kind of pointless doesn't it?

 

Not violent to my knowledge, rough in a pm, but I quit reading most Pms I get by then too becasue of it. They were immediatly banned for it, they sent me a pm admitting what they'd done threateneing me. I forwarded the pm the an admin, they were banned within minutes.
It's hjappened even more seriously to others here before, can't say who, don't want to violate anyones privacy, they aren't here anylonger becasue of it. Stalker was also immediately banned in that case also. They take this seriously here.

I was thinking that was you I remembered that happening too.

 

wonder if you could ask an admin if they have the ability to change it for you. don't know that they can though.

 

I'm glad to hear it. That's why I support my amendment rights.

 

i would think whatever denom a person is currently a member of would determin if they're baptist or not. although at one time the rules were you ahd to be an activemember, menaing actually attending a baptist church also.

 

Then, Darron, by your a Baptist attending a nonbaptist church is still a Baptist if the attending church is not his/her home congregation, and s/he is not loyal to that congregation.

You might want to retract that. I'm a Baptist and an active member of my Baptist church. So I'm not trying to "pull" anything.

 

I attend a baptist church (Southern Baptist). And I've been told to tow the party line (which in a SBC can be very varied). I've been told that I may not ask questions that question anything that the many baptist denominations hold to. (though I find that difficult since many in my church like calvinism from a covenant theory point of view and there are free will baptist). I am not permitted to have personal ideas, opinions, or burgeoning opinions that are in anyway questionable to someones perspective of a baptist. So I click my heels, raise my right hand palm out and shout Jawol! And hope the witch hunters don't show up at my door to burn me at the stake. (though there are those I agree with that burning at the steak may not be so bad). Which is a shame because I can only question things here that I don't at my church and have people from different perspectives answer. Oh well. I guess I have to sound like every one else and let drool fall out of the corner of my mouth as my brain shrivels up for lack of thought. Do I have to by into Carrolls history as well? Or maybe some people are offended not because of the debate but because they have questions as well and are uncomfortable? Let me say this as a Catholic I was a terrible sinner without conscience. My life changed dramatically when I was born again (which include the "sinners prayer" and an "alter call" and a "re-baptism") and no matter what information I am able to obtain in the study of history and theology; that fact will not change. And it is this fact I hold to and points to salvation. Apart from salvation this would not have occured. But I am comfortable in my salvation that I can ask these questions with out fear of loss.

 

Going back to an earlier post of yours...I'm not familiar with stalking in regard to BB members and I don't see a problem with listing "Baptist" as a Denomination, leaving your home Church blank and listing a generic area of residence...like "SE Kansas", but that's not the OP's discussing.

Now, I don't know who Darron Steele is referring to in his OP. I'm just using "Catholic" as an example....

Here's how I understand it...This is a Baptist Board, that's owed by a Baptist...nothing wrong with that and I understand that this person pays for this site.

BUT, there's places that are marked "Baptist ONLY"...nothing wrong with that, and there's an area marked "Other Christian Denominations", which means, people of other denominations may join and participate in areas that are NOT labeled "Baptist ONLY".

Back in the late '90's Catholics were members of the BB that participated in the "Other Christian Denomination" area. What happened was a Moderator or two and some active BB members who were Baptists began to sympathize with the Catholics and later swam the Tiber and became Catholics...then came the great Catholic purge.

Now, if a Catholic stumbles across this BB, reads some threads that are discussing his faith, naturally, he'll want to participate. He applies for membership, as a Catholic NOT knowing Catholics are not allowed, they are denied. He continues to read the threads, so he applies again as a "Christian" instead of "Catholic" and eventually he get's labeled and figured out and is banned.

This is called Blowback...you ban a specific faith, yet you allow threads to talk of the Catholic Theology, and you get what we have.

With the many, many, Baptist sub-denominations there are, the BB could close all membership to "Baptist ONLY" and ban all NON-Baptist, and still have enough to debate about, without others adding to the mix!

Personally, I don't believe it's right for anyone to decide who is and isn't a Christian and not allow them to join. It's also my opinion that Baptists should be confident in what they believe and if their easily persuaded, then they were never sure of what they believed to begin with...if they're new to the Baptist faith, then maybe they should stay away from an open forum, until they are firm in their faith. But just B/C a Catholic is more skilled at his apologetics than some Baptists, the Baptists need to adjust their apologetic skills to counter it, instead of referring to them as heretics or heresy and thus flaming.

In XC
-