Locking the Graham thread

Greg (sermonindex) said: We are locking this thread because of the unprofitable route it is going with comments in the discussion. We are all entitled to an opinon but in the end if we cannot do it with grace and considering others then it is not worthwhile.

We are going to lock this thread and ask this discussion is not raised in the near future. May we focus on Jesus Christ and the need for righteousness to be spoken of in our countries at this moment in history.

I decided to re-read the entire thread and I'd like to challenge these words as they aren't clear enough to merit closing a healthy, yes healthy discussion. I think the thread was closed prematurely and that's sad.

"Unprofitable route" "if we can't (state our opinion) with grace" "if we can't (state our opinion) considering others"

These three 'reasons' aren't in the thread. Could you elaborate on where this opinion comes from?

There was no name calling of anyone. Graham, as a person, wasn't casted down. Nor were any other people. There was never anything personal. Nor were people bickering.

All of it was with grace. I'm curious as to the specific reasoning.

This sadens me ! I think Gordon's request and concern was very clear:
"We are going to lock this thread and ask this discussion is not raised in the near future. May we focus on Jesus Christ and the need for righteousness to be spoken of in our countries at this moment in history."

1. Why can't you show respect and submit to the leaders ?
2. Here is a list of the following 5 threads in this category

Megachurch Changes Position on Homosexuality
Florida Church Popular for Hosting Nude Spring Break Parties
Religious Tensions Simmer Across Pakistan following Church Bombings
Prayer For Persecuted Church in Pakistan
Laos Sentences Pastors to Prison for Praying for the Sick

These are very serious issues but 4 out of the 5 didn't get any replies at all.So you are saying your problem is more important then all of the above.
Why don't you simply talk to the Moderators in private?

Gordon writes: "Brethren, This is not a joke, we must weep and pray for the Church in America that has fallen and God is allowing judgement and sin to prevail in the church itself. Yes we should weep and pray for revival and not spent too much time on minor issues.

Help us Lord - "Be Thou My Vision...", Our vision !

Thanks Mark & Greg, its sad how the will leave serious matters to argue over word and names, and prefer to Gossip. Let's remember "if it does not edifies, it defiles"

Saints,

I encourage brethren to re-read the community guidelines which will not only help us on SermonIndex but in other places in life:

7. SLANDERING OTHERS - We have a zero tolerance on slander, evil-speaking and speaking against a person's character without warrant. 'Slander no one.' / 'to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.' NASB (Titus 3:2). This is a very important biblical principle and we ask that you would especially respect the biblical method of approaching a brother privately (Matthew 18:15). Also there are hundreds of websites in the internet that exclusively post wrong teachings, errors and question the character of Christians, we do not want SermonIndex to be seen as such a ministry and ask that all forum members do not participate in posting in what is wrong. We believe simply that truth dispels errors and to focus on the truth will shine a light into all the darkness.

SermonIndex Community Guiding Principles
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=44556&forum=13

Greg, could you please respond to my original questions? As I find it a little distasteful that you aren't providing any specific reasoning for closing the Graham thread. Due to you lack of citation on what you said.

I'm not sure why people on here, on this thread, are being a bit slanderous. I ask that you guys/girls please stop. As I'm trying to find answers.

LoveMeekHope,

I encourage you to read through the community guidelines. At times moderators make a decision that it really is not beneficial to continue discussing the topic or about the certain speaker.

I'm confused. I asked:

"Unprofitable route" "if we can't (state our opinion) with grace" "if we can't (state our opinion) considering others"

These three 'reasons' aren't in the thread. Could you elaborate on where this opinion comes from?

But now you are saying it's not beneficial to continuing discussing a topic or certain speaker.

You say read the guidelines but I'm getting different messages from you. Since the guidelines state SI is a place of healthy discussion, which is what the Graham thread was full of.

If it's because we were discussing Graham's position, please state clearly that was your reasoning. If you stand by your original statement, could you please elaborate (this is my third time asking for an elaboration)?

I believe your perspective that 'it's unprofitable' is unfounded, as you haven't provided any evidence to that statement.

Based on your reasoning, I don't see how you could say what you are saying. Which is why I'm asking you to elaborate. So, for the benefit of your community, please elaborate because you cut off a healthy discussion, that you deemed unhealthy. Why was it unhealthy? What words, phrases, topics, etc?

This thread has over 400 views and eight replies and I'm no closer to understanding why the Graham thread was closed. Please elaborate Greg. Instead of vague phrases 'it's unprofitable' please state why you think that. Quote me, dolfan or anyone from the thread.

I'll ask again. How are you coming to the conclusion that the topic, speaker, or manner of discussion was unprofitable?

There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

Asserting 'because I said so' isn't really helpful nor Christ-like (Matt. 20:25-26). I don't think that's what Greg is doing.

I'm asking for context and information. That is all. And I've asked repeatedly for the context and perspective Greg is seeing.

Based on integrity of the guidelines, I don't see how the Graham thread has broken any guidelines. There are no examples of slander nor were there examples of how the healthy discussion of racism was unprofitable.

Court of law generally states 'innocent until proven guilty' and generally it means an undeniable amount of evidence to prove guilt. I think in this situation, there is very little to no evidence of the original Graham thread of breaking any guidelines.

If Greg believes that we broke certain guidelines, I'm asking for specific examples. That's all. I look forward to hearing his perspective, as I believe it's a misunderstanding.

I'm not sure why people try to pin down my gender/identity. More specifically I've been labeled a female by others, which was only based on assumption of another user and they decided to run with it.

To respond to you about what gender I am, I'll give you scripture.

Gal. 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.