I was here before the "Religion Moderator" position was created, before the "Religion Forum" was created, and before the "caucus" etc. labels were devised.
In those days sane, rational, gracious, and polite theological discussion was almost impossible, and JR very nearly banned any such discussion from the entire site.
The situation is not perfect now, but it is immensely better than it was.
Well, let me tell you that at MY church we get into some pretty heated disagreements.
Yet those disagreements are still based on some common understanding of "life, the universe, and everything". That's what keeps your group together.
We call it iron sharpening iron.
With all respect to you and your group, most of what I have seen posted on this forum under the guise of "iron sharpening iron" has been polemical to the point of uncharity, factually deficient, and generally a disgrace to those who post it.
If someone is going to make some sort of theological claim, even behind the doors of a church, the members should have the right to discuss its veracity or lack thereof.
Emphasis added. "Devotional" and "Caucus" threads exist to keep the discussion among "the members".
—I see that you have been here since 2011. I have been here since 2000.—
To be honest, I’ve been here since November of 1998. I lost my old ID and created a new one.
Still reading the rest of your post...
OK, as I mentioned before, this is really a minor annoyance. And it came from me trying to argue with an Osteen premise a couple of years ago and I was told it was “devotional” and to butt out. So I did. But now I am in eastern time and those things pop up just as I’m logging in and I remember that apparently “member” means you agree kinda like two pre-tribulationists agree but a Mid-tribulationist would not be a “member” of that devotional.
And yes, I get you regarding the immaturity. I came from Seattle to a “southern Babdis” church that I now attend and while I was teaching a class we got on the subject of my belief that hell means annihilation, one of the “leaders” started thumping his bible, disagreeing with me becuase he believes “what his bible sez” and that settled it. When I tried to show what the bible DOES say about it he became a brick wall. I finally had to say that what he was standing behind is his interpretation of what the bible said. I inched my way into it but it got ugly and I backed off.
Meanwhile, the pastor loved it. He said people’s beliefs need to be challenged so they can more understand their own beliefs and their origin. Not to mention their veracity.
It’s why I discuss religion on liberal sites. Talk about having to know why you believe what you believe! And that is why so many people that ONLY go to devotional threads or talk with people they agree with end up, frankly, narrow minded and completely unable to articulate why they believe what they believe.
And when tested, they wither.