Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community
DaveW

Addition to the rules and regs?

Recommended Posts

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 by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... :laugh:

Any others? :LOL:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :100_pray:

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. )  :sorry:  I need to go and check my dictionary and learn how to spell infallible. 

Alan

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :100_pray:

 

Are you talking about this:

 

 

2 cents.png

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.......:laugh:

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....:15_1_63::sorry::4_13_13:

 

Anyway, this is just some of us discussing - ignore it if you like, and we will just keep enjoying throwing ideas around! :think_smiley_42::3531a34faafcd3d5ab8749a94f57319e::think_smiley_50::4_11_3:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is probably somewhat of a side note here.

I enjoy teaching God's Holy Word.  I believe that the Lord our God has built me to be a teacher by nature (maybe I am wrong on that, and others could reveal my error).  Indeed, I enjoy (as much as time will permit) answering Biblical questions and explaining (sometimes with extensive detail, as many of you would know) Biblical truths.  As such, I guess that I might be classified as a "teacher" on Online Baptist.  Therefore, I publicly declare without hesitation --

Pastor Scott Markle
Melvin Baptist Church
7971 Washington St.
Melvin, MI 48454
(810) 378-5323
www.melvinbaptistchurch.com
author of various books
Self-publishing company - Shepherding the Flock Ministries
www.shepherdingtheflock.com
Independent Fundamental Baptist (although I may not always follow in line with the position of the Fundamentalist "movement" on some things)
Independent by conviction
Fundamental by conviction
Baptist by conviction
Holding to the King James translation, as one who is Massoretic Text and Received Text by conviction

If there is anything else that would need to be known, please ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to make one comment about the whole “make your home church known” thing. (this is my personal opinion) Personal security on the web is a hugely important thing.  People are welcome to share details if they want, and it would be nice to know the generic denomination they attend, but I don’t believe we should be requiring personally identifying information that could help track someone down. There are many people who would be unable or unwilling to join a forum requiring  such information.  They could be hiding from abusive family members, or be hosting foster children, or simply be concerned about their privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy teaching.

I don't feel like I should do much of it on line. 

That's me.

I have a real issue with "Internet theologians".

I have no problem at all with Pastors / evangelists etc from real churches who also have certain on line presence.

And Salyan - exactly why I suggested an option of private info to the mods, rather than public. Just so long as someone can check them out - but that means more work for you!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Salyan said:

I’m going to make one comment about the whole “make your home church known” thing. (this is my personal opinion) Personal security on the web is a hugely important thing.  People are welcome to share details if they want, and it would be nice to know the generic denomination they attend, but I don’t believe we should be requiring personally identifying information that could help track someone down. There are many people who would be unable or unwilling to join a forum requiring  such information.  They could be hiding from abusive family members, or be hosting foster children, or simply be concerned about their privacy.

Sister Salyan,

I have no dispute with these concerns at all.  Above I shared my own information by my own free choice, to some extent since all of the information is already online through my two public websites.  
 

29 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I enjoy teaching.

I don't feel like I should do much of it on line. 

That's me.

I have a real issue with "Internet theologians".

I have no problem at all with Pastors / evangelists etc from real churches who also have certain on line presence.

Brother Dave,

I certainly understand that position as well.  In my case, I pray that I do not come across as an "internet theologian," but as a conscientious Bible student and teacher.  It is ever my desire, not to show off, but to spiritually edify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concerns of an individual making known in a public forum their background.

Throughout my tenure here on OnLineBaptist, as a teacher, if memory serves me well, I have answered any honest question, either public or in private, to individuals who have asked. Other honest teachers here on OnLineBaptist has done the same.

But, one of the reasons why the last two false teachers, and a host of others that have come on OnLineBaptist in years past, have gotten away with their deceit is due to the fact that they can remain anomalous, and their religious background can remain unknown, to the individuals on the forum. 

I for one, am tired of verbally fighting with these false teachers who knowingly are trying to teach false doctrines on OnLineBaptist. 

These false teachers are using the advantage of anonymity to promote their own false teaching agendas. I would like the anonymity not, repeat, not, to be a factor in dealing with these individuals.

Again, I do not want to cause any ill feeling with any moderator. But, if the moderators only know what the background of these individuals, and not the members, then the members are still in the dark; and every false teacher will know this fact and will take advantage of the members being in the dark.

 

Edited by Alan
revised the first sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I point-blank asked Zuso-Soy (sorry...can't remember his name) to provide links or information, I realized he could link to any church anywhere or provide any information from anywhere. 

I think the best answer is as Sis. Rebecca stated...require new members to post a certain number of posts first before giving us the full throttle of their heresy. I've personally seen this dissuade many "posters" on other forums. They give up after not being able to post their junk...but whether this forum software has that option, I don't know.

By the way...I saw an angel yesterday after eating 8 day old unrefrigerated collard greens, and she told me that "Jesus" would return at 7:47 pm on September 21, 2022...think I'll share that with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, during the course of this matter of this thread, after a brief search of the different forums, I have seen recent posts of the individual who gave dates for the events in the Book of Revelation, the two individuals who gave me a lot of grief, in my Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study, and one of the other individuals that gave me  grief in the, "There are Still good Men in the IFB Churches," (this is the "Internet Theologian," study I tried to teach in), still posting  in the other forums. I think most folks know who I am referring too and out of politeness I am not mentioning their names nor forums that they are posting in. 

Unless the false teachers are banned, most, not all, will still post their false teachings. Even after the required number of posts on the other forums the individual who caused  grief they are still posting their false teaching. Requiring individuals to post a set number of postings before they can teach is commendable and I support it; but, we need to still have them declare their religious background, answer honest questions, and require that any non-IFB individual be not allowed to teach any subject relating to the scriptures. If they want to teach us how to operate a chain saw, fix a car, canning techniques, etc... that is no problem.

Yes, I know that they can give us false church website information in order to try and deceive us.

Yes, I know they can say they are IFB in order to try and deceive us.

But, all of my reasonings that I posted beforehand in this thread are the best we can do under the circumstances. The only difference that I can offer at this point in the discussion is possibly have the teacher, in their Profile Page here on OnLineBaptist, have a written doctrinal statement and denominational affiliation. A doctrinal statement that is specific, clear, no ambiguity, and no generalizing.

The required number of postings before an individual can teach is ok when they are listed as IFB and will give the members, not just the moderators, a doctrinal statement. The doctrinal statement can be in the form of a website or it can be listed in their personal information in their profile page on OnLineBaptist. Quite frankly, the scriptures are the foundation of our faith and the individual that teaches any subject of the scriptures should be held to the highest standard possible: whether in the church or on the Internet forum.

Edited by Alan
added a phrase on the Profile Page statement & Preterist& deleted my personal feelings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely though, if the individual had a reason for not being public, we can trust the mods to check and approve. 

I agree that teachers should be IFB, but if that is in the rules it makes it easier for the mods to police.

 

And the whole point of this discussion is to give the mods more tools to control the bad guys.

We don't want to stop people from coming here altogether, just to stop the false teachers from teaching.

Yes, they should be forthcoming with information.  Yes, they should answer any reasonable questions.

But our mods are a trustworthy bunch, and it is their job.

I personally think that it should be an OPTION, at the discretion of the mods, for an IFB teacher to provide that information to our mod group, and for the Mods to let the general board know that the information checks out, but it has been requested as private.

As I said previously, I have not provided a church website publicly. This was primarily because there were a few members here (now banned) who I had serious concerns about personal attacks outside OLB. I can understand people being cautious with personal info. But some of the mods and some members here have my personal details.

To me, this should be a requirement of anyone who wants to teach here.

But as I am not taking on a large amount of teaching here, I would not be subject anyway.

 

My take on it:

Request for proof of IFB background and church affilliation supplied publicly, with an option for that info supplied to the mods and noted publicly by the mods that it has been satisfactorily supplied, and then that person is permitted to "teach".

This can of course be revoked if it turns out that the guy is a nutter.

 

I really like the idea of requiring a personal statement of faith on their profile. Not for general posters but for anyone presuming to teach here.To me this should be the minimum requirement, for if they then go against their own statement it is immediately obvious of their character, and the mods can ban for deliberate deceit.

A personal statement of faith for teachers does not have to provide sensitive public info, but lays out a doctrinal position and gives a source for accountability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

 

I really like the idea of requiring a personal statement of faith on their profile. Not for general posters but for anyone presuming to teach here.To me this should be the minimum requirement, for if they then go against their own statement it is immediately obvious of their character, and the mods can ban for deliberate deceit.

A personal statement of faith for teachers does not have to provide sensitive public info, but lays out a doctrinal position and gives a source for accountability. 

I really would like to have this incorporated into requirements for a teacher (among the other items that I listed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 69 Guests (See full list)

×