My Post Was Locked?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I just agreed with you and I clicked "like this" to show you I agree with you...

 

I'm just kidding...anyway, I clicked on that link you had in your post "boldclaimer".  I see this person agrees with you.  After I read a little about pastors working, I scrolled down and looked at a few of the other posts, this person is seriously bitter about "tithing".  Post after post after post about tithing.  Wow, talk about "hang-ups". 

boldproclaimer's blog is more truthful about tithing than the pastor that teaches monetary tithing.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I haven't seen too much name calling in this forum. Really, almost none at all. This forum is generally pretty mild and civil. If you thinks it's bad it's because you haven't been out and about on the web too much. If you want to see the Wild, Wild West I can lead you to a few sights.

[John81]

I haven't seen too much name calling in this forum. Really, almost none at all. This forum is generally pretty mild and civil. If you thinks it's bad it's because you haven't been out and about on the web too much. If you want to see the Wild, Wild West I can lead you to a few sights.

No doubt, compared to most other sites it's calm here, but we are to compare our speech with Scripture, not other sites.

 

It's not beneficial make accusations against someone because they ask a question, present an alternate point of view, point out a weakness in an argument, have a slightly different view of some things. It isn't proper when we cast the stones of "liberal", "going soft", or worse, insinuating or outright saying someone isn't saved.

 

I agree, most posts here are in accord with Christian civility, but if we let our guard down, that could change rather quickly.

 

Even if our "name calling" is mild, it still touches on deeper issues; such as pride, impatience, frustration, anger, unkindness, lack of love, etc.

 

If we reach a point in a thread where we feel the need to strike out, even mildly, that's the point where we need to catch ourselves, step aside, search our hearts in prayer. Then, hopefully, we will either post a civil post or disengage.

 

Oftentimes in posts that get carried away, the reason they go so far is because all those involved in the 'crazy' refuse to stop. Even if there are a half dozen folks involved and five of the six blame the other guy, if those five simply stated their positions and stopped posting, the thread couldn't go 'crazy' and the "offender" would have no more posts to reply to.

 

It's easy to blame one or two posters in a thread for problems, but the problem is also at the feet of those who continue on and on counterposting their same concepts they have posted before only in less kind ways.

 

This is a well managed site. When we post, we should try to do our part to make it so the Mods have little to do other than participate.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Whether or not a moderator of the forum engages a scenario of posts, whenever we begin to render railing (personally attacking or violently complaining against another) for railing (personally attacking or violently complaining against another), we have already sinned against the Lord our God and have already grieved the Holy Spirit of God.  A moderator of the forum may not even present a form of "discipline," but the Lord our God certainly will.

[JerryNumbers]

I agree with John here. In addition, and I think I'm in a minority with this view, I've always thought that only admin should be able to lock threads. If someone starts a conversation, why does that mean they may also dictate when others stop talking? Always seemed a bit control-freakish to me, and it would be unthinkable behaviour in person. But most forums do allow people to lock their own threads. Just my thoughts--not a complaint!

 

I think its great that if you, someone else, or I starts a topic & it gets derailed that the person that started the topic can shut it down.

 

Now that is something that I hesitated doing, yet I believe I have locked may 3, 4 or 5 topics that I've started.

 

And as stated I'm glad everyone has that privilege, even those who I may disagree with.

 

And while mentioning this I want to thank Bro, Matt for giving us that privilege, as well as the privilege to edit a post we have made. I love this privilege for I make mistakes, & say things in the wrong way at times, & sometime I catch it. And I am happy that everyone else has that privilege too for perhaps that happens to you too.

 

Sometimes I disagree on locking of a topic, but that's OK, I'm not going to cry over it nor take it personal, for I know that its done for the good of onlinebaptist. And the good of onlinebaptist is much more important than any single member including myself. And I believe that most every time a topic is locked its not done so for personal thoughts, but for the good of onlinebaptist.

 

And I agree with Dave, I believe it was Dave who mentioned this, that such comment as this ought to be sent by PM. Although this has been a pretty good topic to air thoughts on such matters.

[Alimantado]

I think its great that if you, someone else, or I starts a topic & it gets derailed that the person that started the topic can shut it down.

 

That's a very good point Jerry and I can see that us moderating our own threads in this way can result in less burden for the 'proper' mods--I acknowledge John's point too about moderating our own behaviour.

 

What I was thinking of is when a thread is going just fine--everyone's happy and being civil and the thread is staying on topic, though maybe some points have been repeated as new people have chimed in with their thoughts--and then the OP appears and declares that because they've got the answers they wanted, they're going to lock the thread even though others are still discussing. I think this is almost as rude as when people post in a thread only to say that they've seen the discussion before: the "here we go again" type posts.

 

Topics will interest different people at different times, and of course any given discussion has been had before: there is nothing new under the sun. But why can't people just leave a thread alone if they're done with it, or if it doesn't interest them, rather than trying to get dictatorial?

 

This doesn't actually happen very much on OB at all now, but a year or so ago it was rather common behaviour. Of course, it's not a major thing as anyone is free to start a new thread on the same topic. It just seems unnecessary.

[The Glory Land]

If we all have our fingers on the red push buttom, we will never get to page ten.....