You posted in the thread "Do Christians worship Different Gods" you suggested that we were going off topic.
The questions asked were:
1/ Am I as a Christian worshiping a different God than the God as worshipped by a fundamentalist Christian?
2/ What effect do these two different views of the Christian God have on our world view as individuals today?
I think that it has stayed right on topic. In the discussion with iano I think that we have come to the conclusion that the first answer is yes and we are talking about exactly what is asked in question 2.
Even in the discussion with Granny Magda where he claims that he and logically me as well have gone off topic. I actually see the rationale for my view of the Christian God is relevant and on topic to both question 1 and 2. If I just say that I believe in a loving God that wouldn't sanction things attributed to the god of the OT without a rationale for my conclusions, the discussion wouldn't go far.
I sometimes wonder if even 300 isn't too many for most threads. Once a thread gets past a certain point there is just too much repetition of views.
I think it is better at that point to start a new thread in the hope of attracting new participants with maybe a different POV who weren't prepared to read through hundreds of posts in order to participate.
Thanks to all the mods. It is a time consuming and largely thankless task.
Well, seeing as how I have the approval of two people on my last post I'll bravely move forward with another.
What has been happening lately is that there is a notice given that a thread is going to close and so participants are allowed to summarize their position prior to closing. Good plan but maybe it should go forward from there.
At that point maybe the mod on that thread could review the summations and if he thinks that it is worth while he/she could start a new thread titled the same as the previous one, but part two. The mod would then use the summations from the initial thread as the opening posts for part two.
This would allow new participants to enter the fray without having to read through hundreds of posts. They would now be free to reply to the summations. This would, I think, also help keep the discussion focused and on topic.
My personal preference would be to do this after 100 posts in a thread but maybe that's too few.
Just a thoughty but I think the reaction, particularly to NoNukes post was a tad OTT. He was responding to ths comment by Chuck.
quote:We don't drag other threads into other threads nor do we quote members from other threads to make points in other threads...Capesh?
I think his response was reasonable and made the point that he should be able to use quotes from other threads.
I realize that you didn't want just one sentence answers that wouldn't move the discussion forward but in the case the response only required one sentence and it moved the discussion forward as it dealt with what could be brought into the discussion.
I know this admin thing can be a thankless task and thanks so much for being willing to do it.
I'll reopen it after a few hours but I want to encourage you to behave kinder towards others (such as GDR) and stop trying to make the thread all about what you believe as some sort of established fact---when it is not. You know the rules here...this isn't simply your private blog. Forum Guidelines Granted your opponents are often not any nicer to you....I saw the topic as getting out of hand. Let it cool down a few hours.
Hi Phat. Personally I don't think that Faith was any harder on me than I was on her. This topic is very important to both of us, and we obviously have very different views on the subject. Thank you so much for doing the pretty thankless job of being an admin.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.