Posting Privileges Revoked on Christian Fapronauts Forum

Well, I had been engaged in a lively discussion on a thread titled - Christians and those curious about converting, what denomination are you?
https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.p...nomination-are-you.125465/page-3#post-1006624

... only to find this message on my return - 'You have insufficient privileges to reply here'. Perhaps this is a mistake, or perhaps I offended someone... but I am none the wiser as no private message or notification about the matter was sent to me.

Is this not a forum for free thought? Do some people feel the need to retreat to a ghetto of group think? Please restore my privileges.

 

Oh, I see. So the thread has been moved over to that forum of which I am not a member. Strikes me as a little strange as it was a well-developed thread... 5 or 6 pages.

Looks like a bit of harmless housekeeping then.... though it does seem a little like segregation.... or should I say congregation.

Personally, I have to admit I dislike the bureaucratic principle to put everything into its own compartment, nice and neat, which would frown upon the cross-fertilization of ideas. I'm all for universality.

 

Ok, cheers for that. Apologies for the momentary paranoia. Is there a particular reason for needing posting privileges for that forum? And do those threads even show up in the 'New Posts'.

I mean, it would be a shame if they were restricted to a like-minded readership without a wider audience. The place of religion is no doubt a difficult one for a secular site, but I'm sure some of the more curious of the secular-minded might also like to read those kinds of threads from time to time. Why not give people the option to read a thread or not in the general thread feed? This would encourage tolerance, liberality, the cross-fertilization of ideas, and universality.... though of course you will always get examples of the opposite... once again tolerance.

The alternative to an open policy is increasingly 'sanitized' sub-forums, where a boring group-think mentality may take root recycling the same old monotonous ideas.

 

As I dislike the sectarian principle, I'll not join the 'Christian Fapronauts' but post my reply here. No offence intended.

@aarondf

But don't you see the problem here. Any old charlatan could decide to set up shop.... and tell others he heard the calling. And then there might be others, who lacking all malicious intent may just be plain delusional.

 

@ℭhrislan

@CassTeaElle

I find the above exchange quite comical, which I think comes from two vastly different mindsets. To be 'in the Church' [in Chrislan's post] is to be a member of an organization which subscribes to a set of beliefs [orthodoxy]. think of it as inter-subjectivity... or belonging to a culture. The Bible here is part and parcel of this organization... both the creation of it and the interpretation of it.

In CassTeaElle's post, to be outside the church [notice now there is no Capitalization because it is not a general idea/ institution... but the definite article 'the', signifying one, should be dropped also] is to be spatially outside some bricks and mortar . But this is not the proper meaning; to be 'outside the Church' means to not be a member of that organization for reason of lack of belief, or ex-communication, or whatever. Also, here the Bible [now we do have a capital] is something that stands alone, a physical book that is in need of no context, indeed, of no 'church'/ building.... 'church' really just becomes a congregation of people. What a disaster for Christianity... the Church no longer exists. But it does..

 

It's not just semantics. It reflects two different ways of thinking, two different paradigms. This is why the argument never goes anywhere... because one of those paradigms remains unintelligible to the other.

 

There is a re-definition of terms involved.

The Church becomes 'church', which really means a particular congregation of believers. But then you also want 'church' to refer to something more general, more abstract - the mass of believers whatever their location, which is totally understandable. This is getting toward the traditional idea of the Church, as something metaphysical beyond bricks and mortar.... and yet it remains devoid of institutional structure. Augustine is quite good in his discussion of the Church... a metaphysical City of God, and yet with a physical and real manifestation, warts and all, at the same time. It is quite natural this relation between the ideal and real, the universal and the particular, the mind and body... the fusion of both in some incarnation. Because it reflects life... unless that reflection has been dimmed by an unnatural ideology.

It's almost as if language and linguistic rules constrain us to speak a certain way about the Church.... just as we would talk about 'the state'. I wonder why that should be so.

 

Yes, but it's not really just about religion. It's about a frame of mind that is open to conversation, dialogue and the discussion of ideas. In practical terms, and with this site in mind, this kind of open discussion serves not only to broaden the mind but distract it from the baser element. When we take pleasure in the more intelligible world, the lower natural self loses its power. We learn to take our pleasure elsewhere.

If this site can not serve that function, then it does a disservice to itself. It has to be more than about the dissemination of correct information, and a clinical segregation of differing 'parties' and 'causes'.