Prophecy Debate?

[Pastor Matt]

@Pastor Scott Markle & @Covenanter Seeing now I have more time, I am willing to set up a forum for discussion on Prophecy. If you both agree to this, what type of format and restrictions would you like applied to this forum for your discussion.

[Salyan]

Reply from Covenanter:
 

I can't reply to the topic.

My suggested format is - 

an agreed specific topic

5 posts each with no other contributors, after which, if we agree we continue for a maximum of 5 more posts & open the debate to others 

no accusations of heresy

no major quotes from the internet - links permitted

[Covenanter]

Now I can comment - I commented in a report

 

[Pastor Matt]

I just changed the permissions.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I agree to the following:

1. No accusations of heresy.  However, expressions of disagreement are expected, since we are engaging in debate-discussion.

2. No major quotes from the internet (since I have no intention of quoting from the internet whatsoever at all).

3. An agreed, specific topic.  I simply suggest that we return to our discussion on Daniel 9, since we already began this discussion-debate.  I further suggest that such discussion begin with a quoting (copy & paste) of the original postings that we delivered in the original thread (Concerning Daniel 9:24-27).

Not certain of agreement:

1. To the five posts each, then maybe five posts more restriction.  Since this discussion-debate is (from my perspective) a form of discussion, some postings may simply present a short question or set of questions for the purpose of clarity.  Placing a numerical restriction would cause a more "debate format" feel to the discussion, and would prevent such a more "discussion" feel for the debate-discussion.  I myself would not prefer this. 

Added suggestion:

1. I myself would not be able to commit unto more than one significant posting in the discussion per week.  Certainly, I would be able to present quick "question-postings" at a faster rate; however, I would not be able to present more thorough, thoughtful postings at that faster rate.  In some fashion, I would request that this restriction on my time might be accommodated.

[Alan]

Ought to be an intersting debate. Daniel 9:24-27 is a very interesting and thought provoking passage.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

I concur with Bro Markle's objection to the "debate format" structuring.

I also believe that all onlookers (ANYONE other than the 2 "debaters") should be required (with teeth to the enforcement) to watch - but NOT comment (the nice way of saying "Shut Up!!").

After it's all said and done (as determined by the 2 participants and/or admin), THEN have open discussion if so desired (of course; 1: It's not my call.  2: There are some here that I don't think are capable of doing so.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I also believe that all onlookers (ANYONE other than the 2 "debaters") should be required (with teeth to the enforcement) to watch - but NOT comment (the nice way of saying "Shut Up!!").

After it's all said and done (as determined by the 2 participants and/or admin), THEN have open discussion if so desired.

​Amen, and AMEN! 

Members of the audience graciously remaining out of the debate until its conclusion (however that is determined) is also very important to me.  This is not because I am not interested in the thoughts and comments of others, but because too many contributors tends to "explode" the thread, and then I am unable to "keep up" with the discussion.  On the other hand, if members of the audience wish to start a side discussion thread, I will seek as much as I am able to follow that discussion.  This is not a promise that I will be able to "keep up" with engaging in that side discussion, but I will endeavor to "keep up" with reading the comments and contributions of others.  In addition, if members of the audience desired to "private message" some comment to me, whether positive or negative, I would be willing to receive them and to consider them also.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

​Amen, and AMEN! 

Members of the audience graciously remaining out of the debate until its conclusion (however that is determined) is also very important to me.  This is not because I am not interested in the thoughts and comments of others, but because too many contributors tends to "explode" the thread, and then I am unable to "keep up" with the discussion.  On the other hand, if members of the audience wish to start a side discussion thread, I will seek as much as I am able to follow that discussion.  This is not a promise that I will be able to "keep up" with engaging in that side discussion, but I will endeavor to "keep up" with reading the comments and contributions of others.  In addition, if members of the audience desired to "private message" some comment to me, whether positive or negative, I would be willing to receive them and to consider them also.

​Concerning the above highlighted, my suggestion in the mod room was that offender's posts be deleted (no warning, notice or explanation) and an automatic 3 warning points be given ON FIRST OFFENSE. That should be sufficient to hedge against "it was worth the consequence" syndrome. Subsequent offenses should be harsher.

[LindaR]

Question for Bro. Matt:

Whatever happened to the debate request by SFIC and Scott Markle on tithing?  Wasn't that request made about 6 months to a year ago?

[Pastor Matt]

@LindaR That is still a possibility for the next debate. 

[Covenanter]

I have reviewed the Daniel 9 threads.

 

[1Timothy115]

​Amen, and AMEN! 

Members of the audience graciously remaining out of the debate until its conclusion (however that is determined) is also very important to me.  This is not because I am not interested in the thoughts and comments of others, but because too many contributors tends to "explode" the thread, and then I am unable to "keep up" with the discussion.  On the other hand, if members of the audience wish to start a side discussion thread, I will seek as much as I am able to follow that discussion.  This is not a promise that I will be able to "keep up" with engaging in that side discussion, but I will endeavor to "keep up" with reading the comments and contributions of others.  In addition, if members of the audience desired to "private message" some comment to me, whether positive or negative, I would be willing to receive them and to consider them also.

 I like this part... ​On the other hand, if members of the audience wish to start a side discussion thread, I will seek as much as I am able to follow that discussion.  This is not a promise that I will be able to "keep up" with engaging in that side discussion, but I will endeavor to "keep up" with reading the comments and contributions of others.  In addition, if members of the audience desired to "private message" some comment to me, whether positive or negative, I would be willing to receive them and to consider them also.

[Pastor Matt]

Thank you all for your suggestion and input. I will have some time next week to go over this list and then if both parties agree, we will get started.