Why Ask?? Why have this forum??

I am new to this forum and I don't understand a couple things. So I decided to post this here in the coffee house so it hopefully will be "on topic" since here there is no defined topic. That really brings me to the point of this thread.I do understand there are intense differences in belief structures such as spirituality, morals, politics and others here in this forum. This is the focus of this particular forum right? A place where we of different beliefs can debate, explain, argue, make friends, make enemy's, ect ect. My question is why ask? If you have a certain thread in a particular topic that leads with a question, why ask if you don't really want to find out other members opinions on it?Take this for an instance. I ask a question and someone cites a example to make a point, I respond, a couple others join in and cite different examples to make their points. So, the topic of the thread remains the same its just the conversation that "evolves" lol. So why, when most of the questions asked are of opinions or perception of a subject, do they get shut down right when things are getting good on the basis of "getting off topic". When in reality they are not off topic they are very much on topic, but have moved deeper into the topic, jumping from example to example. If space isn't an issue and we have page after page why not?I have my opinion and it will probably piss some off. It seems to me, at least with spiritual or Biblical topics, when a non-Christian cannot persuade a Christian or a Christian has made a point that cannot be proven wrong by a non-Christian, a suggestion is made to close the thread and it is done. I have seen posts edited by ADMIN's because they were "off topic". Why? Why ask then?? I could understand if members were doing nothing but cussing and arguing with each other, fine step in, close it down, let ppl cool down and move onto another subject. However, if there is a mature conversation taking place, citing legitimate examples and making points with no animosity why shut it down?Look I have stated I am new here, I have only posted one reply to a post in a thread I was interested in and when I made a point that either the member didn't have an answer to or could not refute a suggestion was made to close the thread on the basis that it was now "off topic". An Admin jumped in and closed it down. I read through the posts and though it wandered a bit here and there but I believe for the most part it was very much on topic.* I am not picking a fight, I am just making a point*In reading other threads this seems to be a recurring trend in this forum. Why have a forum if your not going to allow debates to continue or give one side, usually the same non-Christian side, an easy way out of a discussion by just closing down a thread?I would love to here some opinions on this from both sides of the membership and from the Admins. If I am way off base please let me know, I am able to admit if I am wrong. If some of you feel the same speak up.GO IN PEACE Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.

Bible Study/ Define literal vs non-literal message 243-271. I understand that the OT was about rules around whats to be taken literally. But as I said above threads evolve citing different examples based on the same topic, which I believe took place. Did I miss something in the rules where just because an originator of a thread clarifies his thoughts the whole thread gets shut down? I know the Admin said he would open it back up if anyone asked but it seems pretty weird to just drop a thread on a suggestion when so many are active in a debate.On a side note- JMO but the whole the OT itself is a rhetorical question. Its just like if Rahm Emanuel wrote a book with 2 parts 1. the history of the progressive era 2. The life of Obama. If Rahm described the progressive era from the 1890's-1920's would there be rules around how to take his writings? If he wrote about the life of Obama and referred to the passing of the health care bill as a miracle are there rules to whats to be taken literaly?I said that to say this. There are no rules everyone knows that its the Bible is a account of events both past present and future. It has to do with belief. We all know that. Do you believe Obama passing health care was a miracle? Most all of these threads in the Bible study section are based around that, shoot most of the threads in this whole forum are based around if you believe or not. So if a rhetorical question like the OT was in my opinion evolves to if Paul was referring to Jesus as a literal person or a mythical person from another realm or whatever the position, as long as it stays on topic of literal or non-literal does it matter?

Thanks for you reply and I will take you at your word regarding the Christian Vs non-Christian argument. I still have issues with the "on topic" rule in this thread. The Originator did not define an example he left it wide open to the Bible in general. Others such as Purple dawn and peg took it to Genesis 1. However Killinghurts also stated:"The facts also tell us- You cannot turn water into wine.
- There was no global flood.
- You cannot walk on water.
- You cannot part a sea with a wooden staff.Are these now to be take non-literally?Please reply."and"Now you tell me that I *should* take other events that do *not* line up with the facts (and that you have described as miraculous) to be literal.Wouldn't it make more sense to describe those as not literal too?Awaiting your reply."Which seems to me he left the discussion wide open to the entire Bible and not just Genesis 1."My Admin message gave people the opportunity to make a request to reopen the thread, but it still had to be on topic with the opening post. The discussion of Jesus wasn't."It was not a discussion of Jesus and his existence but a discussion of Paul's writings and the literal or non-literal interpretation of them."The thread, Define literal vs non-literal., was about methods of interpretation, not about whether Jesus was real or not"My point exactly! This was a discussion of how we were to interpret Paul's writings and if he portrayed Jesus in a literal or non-literal context, so it is "on topic" for the thread and "on topic" for the forum. The discussion was not if he existed in real life, you are just merging the two. I could do that with the Genesis account or miracles as well on the basis of whether or not the events ever took place. What is the difference between debating Paul's writings as literal or non-literal vs miracle accounts or the creation account. Its all a debate over the topic just citing different examples. So why should I have to start another thread based on the literal or non-literal interpretation of Paul's writings when that is what this thread was about.
This brings me back to my original question which is Why Ask? and Why have the forum? If you are going to only allow the first example cited to rule the thread and not allow the discussion to evolve and use other examples to make a point, why even have the discussion? Isn't that the whole theme of a forum, to have other people bring in their take on any one topic and debate it?

The context of that WHOLE statement was debating the topic not the title. Thanks, I do know the difference between a title and a topic.

Double PostEdited by AdminPD, : Double Post

LOL!!"The discussion concerning Jesus wasn't dealing with interpretation issues. It was dealing more with belief, outside info, etc."Well that's just it isn't it, Interpretation! Yes my discussion did deal with interpretation issues. However once again I will restate my point. There are no rules for interpretation. Especially when you are dealing with a book like the Bible. Theodoric did not assign any one particular verse. Did he need to? His "INTERPRETATION" of Paul's writings were that he was referring to a mythical Jesus. My interpretation of Paul's writings were that he was referring to a literal Jesus, one that lived and breathed at the same time as Paul. Since you want to pick pieces of my post to try and prove your point I'll post the whole thing once again so you don't get the wrong "INTERPRETATION" of what I wrote.* I will add notes in parenthesis to help you out*"How can you make assumptions about Paul and his writings when you have not read them. To SAY that he was talking about a "Jesus that exists in another realm" ( non-literal interpretation of Paul's writings)??? Jesus did exist in his time (my interpretation). After Jesus died Saul who we now know as Paul was executing the believers of Jesus "Christians". The writings of Paul make this very clear (my interpretation as literal). They even go as far as Showing Paul eating with the Disciples. You can find this in Galatians 2:11-21. In these verses it should clear up two things for you (citing an example of Paul's writings showing method and context to validate my interpretation).1. Paul did live in the time of Jesus he was eating with the same ppl who walked with him. Showing that he was eating and talking to Peter and Barnabas, both Disciples of Jesus.(showing that the scripture established the time line that proves Jesus was alive the same time Paul was *not that he existed*)2. Paul knew Jesus as a real man not a "Other worldly Son of Man". Seeing that in verse 21 he states that if righteousness could be gained by law Christ "DIED" for nothing.( showing that Paul understood and was teaching Jesus as a physical deity not a mythical deity*not proving he existed but that he understood Jesus as God on earth)Why would he say that Christ had died if he did not live(question concerning non-literal interpretation)? Why would he be eating and in fact in this passage be correcting a Disciple if he did not live in the same time frame of Jesus( question concerning non-literal interpretation)?So Theodoric in fact the Gospels do portray Jesus as a literal person and so do the writings of Paul, which do mention the happenings in the Gospels which did exist in his time." (my interpretation of the Gospels and Paul's writings concerning the era and time line they were written)Now I thought that under the proposed topic those notes would not be necessary, but since you called me out "So make your case right now. Me and you only." I figured I would help you out. Look your an intelligent person. You know as well as I do that killinghurts asked a rhetorical question for the basis of this topic. If he was truly ignorant to the fact that there are no rules to a personal interpretation of any literary work then he soon learned the answer to his question quickly.killinghurts:
"I'd suggest closing this topic now.There are clearly no well defined rules for what is to be taken literally and what is not."So this brings me to your point."The discussion concerning Jesus wasn't dealing with interpretation issues. It was dealing more with belief, outside info, etc."If there are no well defined rules for what is to be taken literally and what is not, belief in the literary work could and would play a part in interpretation. So there is no way you can separate the two when having this discussion with believers and non-believers. That is the ultimate problem. Especially when you are discussing interpretation of the Bible with believers and non-believers. The non-believer will look for factual evidence where a believer may just rely on faith.In one sentence I will answer your last question.
"Show me the interpretation conflicts."
Answer:
Belief in the literary work is THE interpretation issue.

All that aside I have one question.In only the Social and Religious Issues forums are you as administrators asking me and others to separate our belief and faith, that the Bible is the living word of God, from the topic when interacting in the debate?That was the main reason for this thread. If I am to enter into debate but required to leave my belief and faith at the door, to me their is no reason to enter into the discussion. Hence the title to this thread. There are sides to these debates. One side on this forum has no belief structure that is attached to the Bible whatsoever, another is neutral and the last is so deeply intertwined that it cannot be separated. I am of the latter.