# Viewers from the Outside



## Romans922

It seems as though outsiders (non-members) have been continually coming on the Puritanboard and although they aren't members they are able to view every thread (especially in the theology forums). Many of these people have used this 'privilege' to bring condemnation to the board on particular blogs or used it to incriminate others, etc. 

Although it is not my board and I respect the decision of the Admins, I think it would be better if maybe only a few sections of the Puritanboard were open to publick viewing while most others were left to only members. 

Maybe suggestions of those forums for Public viewing (for advertising or whatever) would be:

The Information and Welcome Section
Educational Forums 
General Forums

Others seem like they could cause more controversy to the outside publick.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Sounds like a great idea to me. A board where disagreements are visible between members promotes a non-unified front and message.

Then again, with 12 posts, my opinion may not be as valued as that of other members of the board


----------



## Casey

Exagorazo said:


> Then again, with 12 posts, my opinion may not be as valued as that of other members of the board


With an avatar like that, though, who can disagree??


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't know. Maybe if folks who are _in here_ remembered their stuff is wide open to the world, they might restrain themselves a little, so as not to heap *oprobrium* on themselves and the rest of us.

We are just a little slice of Christianity here, friends. We might as well look in the mirror. I'm happy to know people elsewhere are commenting; I'm even more happy knowing that their negativity is publicized here. Since they aren't members, its not as though they can drop a PM to somebody to tell him to "check yourself." Of course, I'd rather we were being praised...

And who knows, maybe the criticism says more about them than us, in certain instances. But sometimes, it will be deserved.

No, we are not going 100% private on this board. That's not why it exists. Its public for a reason. We want browsers and lurkers. Only a handful of fora are private, members only. Go private if you (whomever) want to be ugly.

There's also a reason I put the Burns quote in my signature a loooooooooooong time ago, to try to remind people--*including myself*--all the time of their witness.

Merry Christmas, ya'll. Peace.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

You mean like this?


----------



## turmeric

This is another person (like Michael Dries) who refuses to give a name. Evidently this person was not a lurker, but an erstwhile member. No real name, no real photo. This isn't a member of the general public who is picking on us, this is a disgruntled ex-member. Going private wouldn't have helped.


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> You mean like this?



Um, Yes like that or like this. I wasn't talking necessarily about our 'quibbles' but more about our theology, where other 'presbyterians' who are not allowed here have problems and blog against such things.

But concerning our 'quibbles' it would be also smart to guard against publicizing that also.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Don't you just love free publicity?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> Um, Yes like that or like this. I wasn't talking necessarily about our 'quibbles' but more about our theology, where other 'presbyterians' who are not allowed here have problems and blog against such things.
> 
> But concerning our 'quibbles' it would be also smart to guard against publicizing that also.



How do you even _find_ a blog like that? Really, the reason I ask is that the blog you cited probably has a normal readership of 1 person like most blogs do.

I really don't mind it if those who disagree with the historic Reformed position blog against us. In fact, everytime they do they make it more likely that those searching for Reformed theology will find this board.

As for people writing bad things because we deserve it - so be it.


----------



## bowhunter1961

*pcusa*

i grew up in one of these churches, 6 months or so after i became a believer, i went back to that church to ask the sen. pastor why Christ wasnt preached....his answer was, that "its'(salvation) is not a popular issue"
i went to the jr. pastor, asked the same Q, his response was "Christ is not the only way to heaven" i told my mom this, she told her deacon-ette friend, and the church fired the jr. pastor....this was in the summer of '81
my view is, that youre either reformed, or deformed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Romans922 said:


> It seems as though outsiders (non-members) have been continually coming on the Puritanboard and although they aren't members they are able to view every thread (especially in the theology forums). Many of these people have used this 'privilege' to bring condemnation to the board on particular blogs or used it to incriminate others, etc.
> 
> Although it is not my board and I respect the decision of the Admins, I think it would be better if maybe only a few sections of the Puritanboard were open to publick viewing while most others were left to only members.
> 
> Maybe suggestions of those forums for Public viewing (for advertising or whatever) would be:
> 
> The Information and Welcome Section
> Educational Forums
> General Forums
> 
> Others seem like they could cause more controversy to the outside publick.



Personally, it is not offensive to me to find that an acknowledged Fed Vis proponent or someone who remains in an apostate setting like the PCUSA, admitting openly that the setting is apostate, is upset w/ us for planting our flag; Gods truth cuts deep, even to bone and marrow........


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Hmm, I note that at present there are 17 guests who are currently reading the thread on Steve Wilkins' Presbytery Examination and Response.


----------



## Scott Bushey

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Hmm, I note that at present there are 17 guests who are currently reading the thread on Steve Wilkins' Presbytery Examination and Response.



Thats actually pretty scary! The Fed Vis mafia is after us!


----------



## turmeric

I love the "Who's Online" feature! I think we should check it often, it reminds us that we _are_ on a public forum.


----------



## JohnV

I've got no problem with this. I don't read blogs. Simple as that. Do I have to go around navigating to hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of blogs? Or do I subscribe to one forum board? I prefer the latter. The I-net is unregulated, and any regulation produces ten to a hundred new ways around it. So I like a regulated Board. I might not like the ultra -isms, but that's another quibble.


----------



## Staphlobob

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Hmm, I note that at present there are 17 guests who are currently reading the thread on Steve Wilkins' Presbytery Examination and Response.



Just took a look at it myself. VERY scarey stuff.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Staphlobob said:


> Just took a look at it myself. VERY scarey stuff.


I figure it this way...we shouldn't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Let them read...we occasionally read them (and laugh...sometimes it sounds like 3rd grade..."he booted me, I'm not listing him or recommending him anymore" "me neither because he booted you"). Aiaiaiai!


----------



## bookslover

JohnV said:


> I've got no problem with this. I don't read blogs. Simple as that. Do I have to go around navigating to hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of blogs? Or do I subscribe to one forum board? I prefer the latter. The I-net is unregulated, and any regulation produces ten to a hundred new ways around it. So I like a regulated Board. I might not like the ultra -isms, but that's another quibble.



You don't read blogs? Man, you've hurt my feelings! 

No Christmas card for _you_ this year, bub.


----------



## bookslover

LadyFlynt said:


> I figure it this way...we shouldn't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Let them read...we occasionally read them (and laugh...sometimes it sounds like 3rd grade..."he booted me, I'm not listing him or recommending him anymore" "me neither because he booted you"). Aiaiaiai!



I agree. Let the visitors, lurkers, etc., read whatever they want (except for the two personal forums for the men and women, of course). This board is a great way to publicize Reformed Christianity on the internet. The fact that there isn't total uniformity of opinion and/or interpretation on various points is a _good_ thing! It shows that we are _thinking_ Christians, not just mindless robots as Christians are so often portrayed in the mainstream media.

The key, as someone has already said, is to remind yourself that whatever you post is out there for all the world, literally, to see. If you wouldn't say it to your grandmother (or your bartender), don't post it.


----------



## MrMerlin777

bookslover said:


> I agree. Let the visitors, lurkers, etc., read whatever they want (except for the two personal forums for the men and women, of course). This board is a great way to publicize Reformed Christianity on the internet. The fact that there isn't total uniformity of opinion and/or interpretation on various points is a _good_ thing! It shows that we are _thinking_ Christians, not just mindless robots as Christians are so often portrayed in the mainstream media.
> 
> The key, as someone has already said, is to remind yourself that whatever you post is out there for all the world, literally, to see. If you wouldn't say it to your grandmother (or your bartender), don't post it.



Yes we should be sensitive to the fact of others lurking here. But on the flip side the people here are who they are and if someone doesn't like what they say it's kind of like TV, they can change the channel. One doesn't have to lurk here. I myself don't agree with everything that's posted here and I'm free to disagree in that case. I don't have to post if I don't want and I don't have to read a post if I don't want. It's one of the good things about the information superhighway, freedom.


----------



## bookslover

MrMerlin777 said:


> Yes we should be sensitive to the fact of others lurking here. But on the flip side the people here are who they are and if someone doesn't like what they say it's kind of like TV, they can change the channel. One doesn't have to lurk here. I myself don't agree with everything that's posted here and I'm free to disagree in that case. I don't have to post if I don't want and I don't have to read a post if I don't want. It's one of the good things about the information superhighway, freedom.




Well said!


----------



## MrMerlin777

bookslover said:


> Well said!



Cheers, thanks


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Since I'm chief of sinners here, let me say that I do write with the public in mind. I get frequent posts off list about the things I write and so I am reminded that lots of folk read this board beyond subscribers. When I sin (and I do frequently!) I am quite willing to be confronted with it and to be given an opportunity to repent. I make no pretense to having achieved some extraordinary degree of sanctity. 

Presently the FV folk are in a lather about my use of the rope metaphor. 

Let me try again to clear up misrepresentations. No, the metaphor doesn't imply anything about the work of the FV/NPP committee - as I know nothing about the workings of the committee. 

No, it doesn't imply that the actual work of any presbytery is a lynching. 

No, the metaphor isn't demeaning to the work of church courts. Have none of these literate fellows ever heard the expression: "enough rope to hang himself?" Is suicide a more morally correct metaphor than lynching? 

Why aren't my FV critics as upset about Wilson's and Wilkins' view of slavery as they as they about my use of metaphor and irony?

It's funny too to see the moral indignation of the same sort of folk who gave us PPT. I think their reaction to my comments more than justifies my deep suspicion about the intent and purpose of the document: to shame folk like me into shutting up about the FV errors.

Well it hasn't worked. As of now I remain impenitent. Presbyteries and General Assemblies and especially my own Synod need to address these issues directly and discipline the errorists as soon as possible.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> Why aren't my FV critics as upset about Wilson's and Wilkins' view of slavery as they as they about my use of metaphor and irony?



What is their view of slavery?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Well, you should probably read it for yourself lest I'm accused of misrepresenting their learned scholarship. As I recall, they have some peculiar ideas about our peculiar institution.

rsc



ChristianTrader said:


> What is their view of slavery?
> 
> CT


----------



## turmeric

I've heard it said that Wilson was in favor of slavery. It makes me want to start another thread, lest I hijack this one.


----------



## ChristianTrader

turmeric said:


> I've heard it said that Wilson was in favor of slavery. It makes me want to start another thread, lest I hijack this one.



Well everyone should be able to agree with that statement depending on the context.

I have one of Wilson's book on the subject that I have not read. (All I know that is that since I purchased it, the printing of it has ceased). Perhaps now is as good a time as any to read it.

CT


----------



## bookslover

R. Scott Clark said:


> Since I'm chief of sinners here, let me say that I do write with the public in mind. I get frequent posts off list about the things I write and so I am reminded that lots of folk read this board beyond subscribers. When I sin (and I do frequently!) I am quite willing to be confronted with it and to be given an opportunity to repent. I make no pretense to having achieved some extraordinary degree of sanctity.
> 
> Presently the FV folk are in a lather about my use of the rope metaphor.
> 
> Let me try again to clear up misrepresentations. No, the metaphor doesn't imply anything about the work of the FV/NPP committee - as I know nothing about the workings of the committee.
> 
> No, it doesn't imply that the actual work of any presbytery is a lynching.
> 
> No, the metaphor isn't demeaning to the work of church courts. Have none of these literate fellows ever heard the expression: "enough rope to hang himself?" Is suicide a more morally correct metaphor than lynching?
> 
> Why aren't my FV critics as upset about Wilson's and Wilkins' view of slavery as they as they about my use of metaphor and irony?
> 
> It's funny too to see the moral indignation of the same sort of folk who gave us PPT. I think their reaction to my comments more than justifies my deep suspicion about the intent and purpose of the document: to shame folk like me into shutting up about the FV errors.
> 
> Well it hasn't worked. As of now I remain impenitent. Presbyteries and General Assemblies and especially my own Synod need to address these issues directly and discipline the errorists as soon as possible.
> 
> rsc




You might get yourself a reputation as an ornery cuss. Of course, being an ornery cuss could be fun!


----------



## Timothy William

With respect, I think the suggestion of making most of the boards private would be a major change for the worse. 

I first stumbled on A Puritan's Mind, and then the Boards here, about 4 years ago, and though I've now been a member and regular reader and occasional contributer for over three years, the most profound changes in me occured through reading the theology threads in those first few months. Discussing things with like minded brethern is of course valuable, but it was my initial conversion to Reformed thought which was really of the greatest spiritual benefit. And that, of course happened before I was a member. I often think that the real beneficiaries of the Boards are the lurkers who have their errant views challenged, moreso than those aleady here having their rough edges smoothed. Same with churches - the one sinner in the congregation who hears the truth and believes and is saved causes greater celebration in Heaven than the 99 regulars who hear another sermon expounding doctrine they alerady know and believe.

Once before I was a member I disagreed with some of what was said on an early Iraq war thread, and I emailed Scott Bushey to express my displeasure; though he had obviously never heard of me before, he was gracious enough to both reply to my email and post my comments onto the relevant thread. It left a lasting positive impression on me (though we still disagreed about the war) which couldn't have happened if I couldn't have viewed the original thread.


----------

