Members DaveW Posted April 12, 2018 Members Share Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) I thought maybe a little discusdion on this point: rules about teaching on OLB. I think it is entirely reasonable that we expect affiliation and relevant background before someone is allowed to present a teaching thread. Maybe even a minimum time here before it is allowed? I think it would help the mods in dealing with such things if there were clear guidelines. Up till now there has not been a need, but a few months ago we had a guy start several threads to push his teaching and eventually he was banned. If there was something solid in the rules that the mods could point to, it would make their life easier. I do not intend by this to stop people teaching, but as I said in another thread, it is reasonable to want information before allowing someone to teach. Not one of us would allow someone to walk in off the street and start teaching our children, and we would all be appalled if our Pastor didn't check out a guy who wanted to teach or preach in our church. So what think ye? Do we need a list of basic info, even if it is supplied to the mods privately? Do we need a "qualifying period" (only for teaching). Any other thoughts? Let's discuss. Edited April 12, 2018 by DaveW Phone spelling Alan and Doc Flay 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted April 12, 2018 Members Share Posted April 12, 2018 Indeed. I am not sure what the details should be, but I certainly agree with the principle. Alan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted April 12, 2018 Members Share Posted April 12, 2018 I agree... but Dave, you really need to work on your spelling. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! I know it's just "phone-typing"...but I couldn't resist... Doc Flay, Alan and DaveW 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 12, 2018 Author Members Share Posted April 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said: I agree... but Dave, you really need to work on your spelling. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! I know it's just "phone-typing"...but I couldn't resist... Any others? :LOL: No Nicolaitans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post Alan Posted April 12, 2018 Members Popular Post Share Posted April 12, 2018 Yes, I agree. I would like to add my two cents (Oh! how I wish we had the 2 cent avatar back). Please, somebody find a two-cent avatar. 1. In the last two, quote unquote, "teachers," neither one was IFB. 2. Both of the teachers used a non-KJV without even an indication that is was non-KJV as they did not tell us what version it was. Both individuals are knowledgeable in the scriptures enough to know that it is common courtesy, unless the version is the KJV, to abbreviate the version used. In my eyes this was done deliberately to deceive us. 3. Both of them were unwilling to state what church, or fellowship, they belonged to. 4. Both of them gave vague, ambiguous, half-truths, or very general answers to questions that were appropriate and desirable in Christian circles. 5. One of them (I will forbear mentioning which one), when caught in a out-and-out lie, had the audacity to state we (the members on this forum who rebuked the individual), were on a witch hunt and were the cause of the ill-feeling. 6. Both of them, in my eyes, were "Internet Theologians." They went from forum to forum spreading their beliefs. 7. Both of them did not care one bit what any of us believed. In my opinion, they were insincere, dis-honest, and knew what they were doing. Both individuals were intelligent and knowledgeable of the scriptures and the different beliefs. So, they were not ignorant. 8. Both individuals, in my eyes, knew what IFB brethren believed and came on OnLineBaptist deliberately to try and persuade us to change. Those are my thoughts, and as we were reminded very recently, in a forceful manner, we (especially Dave), are not infallible. So, I will declare beforehand (before I am reminded that I am not infallable infalible unfalable. ) I need to go and check my dictionary and learn how to spell infallible. Alan John Young, DaveW, Doc Flay and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 13, 2018 Author Members Share Posted April 13, 2018 I know the mods will now be discussing this in their own mods room, and I think it would ultimately be up to BroMatt anyway (?), but any other suggestions on how to handle it? And Alan, thanks for pointing out that we are not infallible and thanks especially for pointing out that I, in particular, am not infallible....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wretched Posted April 13, 2018 Members Share Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, Alan said: Yes, I agree. I would like to add my two cents (Oh! how I wish we had the 2 cent avatar back). Please, somebody find a two-cent avatar. Are you talking about this: Edited April 13, 2018 by wretched No Nicolaitans and Alan 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Jim_Alaska Posted April 13, 2018 Administrators Share Posted April 13, 2018 The mods are discussing this and I am sure that if and when any policy changes are implemented that there will be an announcement from BroMatt. Please rest assured that there is concern about this subject on the part of the mods also. Pastor Scott Markle, Alan, HappyChristian and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 13, 2018 Author Members Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said: The mods are discussing this and I am sure that if and when any policy changes are implemented that there will be an announcement from BroMatt. Please rest assured that there is concern about this subject on the part of the mods also. Thanks for letting us know. I certainly don't want to add any pressure to the mods over this - I thought someone might have a really good suggestion to add that the rest of us hadn't thought of. The Mods here do a great job - have to to put up with me! Jim_Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Salyan Posted April 13, 2018 Moderators Share Posted April 13, 2018 Well, now that you mention it... DaveW, HappyChristian and No Nicolaitans 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jordan Kurecki Posted April 13, 2018 Members Share Posted April 13, 2018 Agreed. I do not want OnlineBaptist to ever become like Baptistboard. This would be a step towards preventing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rebecca Posted April 13, 2018 Members Share Posted April 13, 2018 There are a few forums I’m a part of that requires new members to first post in the introduce yourself section, it’s set up so that they’re unable to post anywhere else until that’s done. Then they’re restricted to only commenting and not starting new threads until they’ve commented a set number of times which varies on the different forums but can be from 5-20 comments on different threads and not on just one over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 14, 2018 Author Members Share Posted April 14, 2018 I wonder what people think about the idea (if it is even possible) to have some sort of "teacher ranking" where say consecutive posts (more than 3 ?) are not possible without a "permission", which must be sought from the mods. In other words, to post a teaching thread, you must first ask for and get approval to do so. In my mind it would be a one off permission and able to be revoked if needed. The "three consecutive posts" is just a thought on how - someone else would have to comment before the person could continue then. That means though that if someone doesn't want their church details out in public it only needs to be the mods who know. I am ok with that, just so long as someone can check them out. Anyway, just another thought. I do think pne restriction is that if they cant cpntrol their spelling mistakes they shouldnt be able to teach....... No Nicolaitans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alan Posted April 14, 2018 Members Share Posted April 14, 2018 2 hours ago, DaveW said: I wonder what people think about the idea (if it is even possible) to have some sort of "teacher ranking" where say consecutive posts (more than 3 ?) are not possible without a "permission", which must be sought from the mods. In other words, to post a teaching thread, you must first ask for and get approval to do so. In my mind it would be a one off permission and able to be revoked if needed. The "three consecutive posts" is just a thought on how - someone else would have to comment before the person could continue then. That means though that if someone doesn't want their church details out in public it only needs to be the mods who know. I am ok with that, just so long as someone can check them out. Anyway, just another thought. I do think pne restriction is that if they cant cpntrol their spelling mistakes they shouldnt be able to teach....... 1. I am of the persuasion that the background of the teacher should be known to all of us; not just the moderators. 2. I am of the persuasion that only, may I repeat, only, IFB individuals should be allowed to teach. To me, this is of utmost importance. I am tired of verbally fencing swords with false teachers here on OnLineBaptist that are not IFB. I came on OnLineBaptist for fellowship and honest, may I repeat honest, discussions on biblical issues with IFB brethren and not to verbally fence with the vast hoard of false teachers on the various Internet forums who are just trying to push their doctrinal agendas. 3. I am of the persuasion that individuals that teach should make their home church known and that church has a readable doctrinal statement on a website that is IFB. At one time is was a requirement with OnLineBaptist. I do not want to debate the issue; but, maybe it should that it is a requirement for teachers to be IFB. 4. I am of the persuasion that adherence to the KJV is of absolute necessary. 5. Students in every classroom in the world, and in every church, are allowed to ask reasonable questions with an expectation of reasonable answers. The last two teachers are classic examples of false teachers. In my eyes, when an individual, especially a teacher, is ambiguous, side-stepping questions, belittles the individuals asking hard questions, and slanders the individual instead of answering the question, than that teacher is hiding something that he does not want to be known. DaveW, Jim_Alaska and Pastor Scott Markle 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 14, 2018 Author Members Share Posted April 14, 2018 I don't disagree with you, however, I have not made the website for the church I attend public here. This was partly because I did not want the possibility of our church website being attacked by some of those false teachers. There are many on here who do know my home church and have looked at the website, but it is not "public" on here as such. Wouldn't take much to figure it out of course. However, I also have only posted one item that could be considered "teaching". I appreciate those who do teach here, but I do not feel it is where I should spend my efforts. As such, I would be happy with either private or public requirement. But I would not be happy with no requirement. (I will accept whatever is decided by the Mods of course - it is up to them, and Brother Matt). If it is deemed that a private disclosure is acceptable, then maybe the Mods need to somewhere state that the individual has a legitimate association with a good Independent Baptist Church, when a new guy is approved. But also people have to realise and understand that the Mods cannot do some sort of full on FBI check, and a quick look at a website is no guarantee. This is another burden being put onto a group of volunteers and we all have to keep that in mind. If, even after a change is made (if it is deemed appropriate) we still have some of this, it is not the fault of the Mods. It will almost certainly happen, because someone will lie to them and produce enough "evidence" to get away with it for a while. Wolves will find ways to get into the sheepfold. Hmmm..... I had wanted to just put something into the stated rules to give the Mods a "standard rule" to point to, but now it looks like I am trying to make extra work for them...... Sorry Mods.... Anyway, this is just some of us discussing - ignore it if you like, and we will just keep enjoying throwing ideas around! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.