Soc.Religion.Christian.Bible-Study

Last update 03/10/04

Welcome to soc.religion.christian.bible-study!

This page describes the "rules of the road" for the UseNet Bible Study group. If you have any questions, please email the of the group. You can check out the newsgroup by clicking here

Before you read this, you should read the Charter for Soc.Religion.Christian.Bible-Study. That document sets out the rules that I must follow in moderating the group. This page describes my interpretation of those rules.

What is this group and how does it work?

The purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss the Christian Bible, as defined in the Charter. This newsgroup is moderated, which means that all articles sent to the group must be approved by a human being before they will be distributed to the net at large. Your NetNews software should automatically transform postings into email to the moderator. Thus, you should be able to post to this group just like any other. Do what you would normally do, and in most cases, the article will be properly forwarded.

Unfortunately, some sites have software or configuration problems such that postings to moderated groups simply do not work, or create multiple copies of the submission or send blank submissions. If you have trouble posting, you can send postings via email directly to the submission id. Postings sent to my personal email address will be delayed, and may even be "lost in the shuffle."

Address comments/questions to
Article may be submitted to

Send postings to the submission id, questions or comments for the moderator to the comment/question id and personal email to my id.

WARNING: If you send something to the article submission address that is not clearly marked as not to be posted, I will post it, if it is within the rules of the group.

Who can partake and what doctrines are enforced?

This group was created for the purpose of discussing the Bible, from both religious and secular viewpoints. It is not in any way limited to Christians, or even theists, but the definition of 'The Bible' is the one (actually 'ones') used by Christians. Generally, this means all of the books in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox canons. For explicit details, see the official Charter for the group at http://srcbs.org/bible/charter.html . This explicity means that 'heretical' and atheistic views are perfectly acceptable, as are postings that attempt to discredit the Bible for various reasons. No particluar "Christian" point of view is enforced, and no particular viewpoint is restricted. It should be noted that extended discussions about Islam or Judaism, outside of the context of the Bible, will be tightly monitored. Any overt attempts to gain converts to any group, Christian or not, will be rejected.

Neither flame wars nor denominational wars are acceptable or permitted in the group, though discussions ABOUT denominational views will be accepted. Generally, these tend to be "Catholic vs. Protestant" and so long as they stay calm and reasonable, and focus on Scripture, they will be permitted. I will not restrict Roman Catholics from bringing the Magesterium into the debate, and Orthodox and Roman Catholics may, of course, rely on arguments from Tradition in the course of discussions.

Please do not call others "heretics," "fools," etc. If you do this, your post will most likely be rejected. If you believe a person to hold a "hertical" or "foolish" position (remember, this is in *your* eyes!), refute them from Scripture or with logic. I do allow a bit of leeway in this area, since it is often a fine line. If you think I've let it go to far, please let me know!

Often times it is necessary to use materials other than Scripture to make your point. This is acceptable, so long as what is under discussion falls in line with the Charter. That is, if you wish to quote the Church Fathers, the Eccumenical Councils, the Roman Catholic Catechism, the Council of Trent, the Augsburg Confession, the Nicene Creed, etc., that is perfectly acceptable, so long as you stay on topic. Quoting commentators is perfectly acceptable, so long as you clearly identify the person you are quoting.

NOTE: It is well documented that some reformers repeatedly referred to the Pope as Anti-Christ, and this view is held by many Protestants today. After long, hard thought on this issue, as well as a discussion in the group, I feel that this falls into the notion of denominational attack. Even if it didn't, the statement itself does nothing to foster discussion or communication. As such, posts which contain statements to this effect, or similar ones which tie the Roman Church to certain negative images in the Book of Revelation, will be rejected.

Anonymous contributions

I will accept postings which have pseudonyms attached to email ids which are identifiable as to their source (that is, they contain a valid email address). I will also accept postings that request anonymity, posting them with "Bible Study" as the 'author.' Postings from anonymous posting sites, or anonymous servers will not be accepted under any circumstances.

Authors requesting anonymity should make it clear that they desire this in the first line of their post, in all CAPS. Failure to do so may cause the posting to be sent with their name still attached.

Crossposted articles

I will not accept crossposted articles, except in the case of certain applicable FAQ's. This is done for several reasons. First of all, it means that those contributing to the group are participating in the group, not reading the thread in another group. Second, it cuts down on volume in general, and specifically eliminates a lot of "off-topic" posts. Finally, it eliminates the problems that arise when postings are sent to moderated and non-moderated groups, or worse, multiple moderated groups.

Special Headers

The software that I use to process posts for this group is not designed to pass through special headers, including the special X- headers, though it may on occasion do so, depending on the way they are inserted by the user or their software. The only headers that are passed by my software are: Date, From, Subject and, if the post is a reply, References. All other headers are discarded.

In terms of policy, I believe that every post to this group should be archived. This ensures that a record is kept of discussions here and allows me to refer to old postings without keeping my own archives, which are expensive in terms of disk space. In addition, it allows a quick and easy way to see if all of the articles are being properly posted. From a reader perspective, it provides a record of posts that can be referred to during extended discussions.

Archiving of Posts

All posts to this group can be found on Google Groups ( http://groups.google.com). As noted above, I do not honor the X-No-Archive: header used to prevent archiving of posts - it is removed by my posting software.

Web Site Announcements

I will post website announcements, so long as they contain a summary or synopsis of what is on the page, and that it appears to be on-topic for this group. Posts which simply refer the reader to a URL will be rejected if they do not contain synopsis information.

Doctrinal standards

Some people may want me to enforce doctrinal standards or particular interpretations of passages. There are three reasons why I do not:

This group was created by public vote, with people at many internet sites participating. Many of the people who voted for it would likely not have approved if such standards were enforced. Having been involved in the group's creation, I can say without question that it was specifically this that people were concerned about. The charter attempts to reflect as neutral a position as possible.
Usenet, Government & University policy. Usenet uses lots of resources of various American universities and American governmental agencies. Under American law, it would be inappropriate to use these resources for an activity that discriminates against posters based on their religious views. Since I am located in the US, I will try my best to follow all applicable US Law.
Which standards? This group is used by people from all of the major traditions, including "liberal", "conservative", Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians. It is also used by Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. It's difficult to imagine doctrinal standards or rules that would not exclude some (if not most) of those groups.

The fact that I approve a particular posting does not in any way imply that I agree with the sentiments or positions of the poster.

What is the Bible?

The group takes a very wide definition of the Scriptures. See the Charter for specific guidelines. Note that they are extremely liberal. This doesn't imply anything about what I personally accept as the canon. What it does mean is that you may need to get a copy of a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Bible or a collection of Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books to follow some of the discussions.

Why a moderated group?

The purpose of moderation is primarily to increase the "signal to noise ratio" of the group. Most postings are accepted. Those that are rejected generally fall into one of the following categories:

personal attack, or postings that are likely to generate discussions that are primarily ad hominem;
postings that are primarily attacks on another group, indicating no interest in understanding them;
postings that contain profanity;
redundant postings. This means that if I got lots of responses saying the same thing, I may choose just some of them. It also means that when a discussion seems to have gotten to the point where the same thing is being said over and over, I will sometimes close it off;
There are certain controversial issues, such as homosexuality and abortion, which could dominate the group if allowed to do so. When a topic is closed off, it may be for a short or long time, as decided by the moderator. Remember, this is a moderated group, and if you disagree with the policies, there are unmoderated groups (such as talk.religion.misc) which will allow you to express any idea on any topic at any time. Discussions on these issues are allowed, but will be limited if they begin to dominate (but see below);
postings irrelevant to the subject matter of the group;
postings that do not make sense on their own (see below);
postings falling into certain specific categories for which there are specialized groups. This includes
- talk.origins - discussions of evolution and related issues, in their scientific aspects. The biblical understanding of creation and exegetical issues involving the creation account are fair game, though posts will be carefully scrutinized before being approved.
- talk.abortion - all aspects of abortion. Exegetical issues are acceptable, but will be carefully scrutinized before being approved;
No topic will be allowed to dominate the group. If a topic generates overwhelming traffic over a long period, the discussion may be cut off, or redirected;
No individual will be allowed to dominate the group. This means that a large number of postings from a single individual will draw added scrutiny. To avoid this, try to combine your responses on a thread into a single post. A good rule of thumb is that you should not send more than 10 separate posts on any given day;

I always try to send mail when I reject a posting. This means that if you don't see either the posting or a reject notice, it is likely that some communications failure has occurred. Note well that because of the mechanism used for moderated groups (email to the moderator) and the mechanism for distributing UseNet messages, it may take 24 to 48 hours from the time you send your message until you see it in your newsreader. If you are on a "well connected" site with a fast newsfeed, your turnaround time could be as little as 2 hours. Don't count on it, though! For more details on this, see the page on rejected articles.

For a more detailed discussion of free speach and moderated newsgroups, see the section on censorship below.

Style/Formatting of postings

Postings which contain lots of inserted material are hard to follow, so please keep the included material to a minimum by removing it (if possible) or summarizing it (if necessary). This is what I mean by postings 'making send on their own." Try to compose a post that presents the issue and makes a statement about that issue. You might want to start with a blank screen instead of the person's posting.

If you don't start with a blank screen, trim as much of the previous material as you can - leave only enough to make it possible to follow the argument. Be sure to trim out lengthy quoted passages of Scripture and replace them with the verse references.

Be sure to include the author's name and the title if you are quoting a published work. Be aware of Copyright law and "fair use" rules. Typically, you may quote short excerpts from copyrighted material for the purposes of reviewing or commenting on the text. Be very careful in the amount of material you quote, and be sure to include a citation of the source. I can't be responsible for checking the validity of your usage, and if a complaint is received from an author, copyright holder or publisher, I will attempt to cancel the article and notify you of the problem.

Another important thing to remember: many people who read News still use an ASCII terminal or a terminal emmulator which limits their line-lengths to 80 characters. (My moderation software runs under a Unix shell, accessed via a VT320 emmulator.) Postings with long-lines in them cause wrapping or truncation, making them very difficult to read. As such, please make sure that you have no lines over 78 characters in length in your postings. If you mave many of these, I will return the post to you and ask you to edit it.

It would be advisable to keep your lines 70 characters or less. This allows for multiple follow-up posts that use included material without causing line wrapping. I won't enforce a 70 character limit, but it would be in your best interest to adhere to this limit. If possible, set your editor to automatically insert a hard return once you cross the 70th character margin.

If I need to comment on something in a post, my comments will appear in curley braces with my initials, like this: {{ comment -sma }}. These kinds of comments are rare, and generally address an administrative issue or question.

I will not modify regular postings in any other way. If some part of the posting is offensive or out of place, no matter how small a portion of the total posting, I will return it to the author for editing. I feel anything else will only generate bad feelings.

If a posting is returned to you, be sure to strip out all of the extraneous headers, included text, etc before you send it in again. If your newsreader keeps copies of your posts, you should edit that copy and resubmit it.

What about advertising?

In the past, advertising or "commercial' use of the Internet has been either forbidden or strongly discouraged. As they say, times have changed. As such, I will permit postings that advertise products or offer things for sale, so long as they are appropriate for this group. The "Subject" of such postings will be modified to include the words "ADVERT" or "ADVERTISEMENT". I reserve the right to reject advertising which I do not think is appropriate or which is misleading or hype.

Articles which contain advertising should be reasonable in length, should inform the user as to the method for obtaining more information, and state clearly any terms of sale (if prices are given). I make no warranties or guarantees about any product or service that is advertised. I will not act as a middleman nor get involved in any disputes about for sale items.

If you wish to ignore all advertising, you can simply skip over these articles, or, if your newsreader allows, create a "kill file." For information on creating a "kill file," contact your news administrator, system administrator or your ISP's help desk.

SPAM and UCE will be ignored and deleted out of hand, with no rejection message sent.

What about censorship? Will the moderator censor my viewpoint?

NOTE: This section assumes American Constitutional Law. Your country's laws may vary. Since I am based in the US, I need to abide by US Law first (including treaties signed by the US and approved by the US Senate) and then applicable International Law.

First of all, the moderator is no more of a censor than a newspaper publisher who determines what topics are discussed on the "Letters to the Editor" page of the newspaper. The public at large has no constitutional or other legal right to force their writings onto that page. The items that appear do so at the perogative of the person who owns the press. The US Supreme Court has over the years, via many decisions, clearly established this.

Please note that I oppose any kind of government censorship (such as the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act or the German government's recent actions). On the other hand, this group is a voluntary association, in which the only requirement for membership is abiding by the rules. As I've said many other places, if you don't like the rules, UseNet has many, many places for you do discuss your views with no restrictions. Generally, under American Law, you don't have a right to force others to hear what you have to say, nor force them to publish what you have to say.

Some will say that this is censorship. To them, I say no, it is editorial license. The distinction here is between the street corner and a newspaper. There are many, many places on the internet where you can express any opinion on any topic (though I urge you to stay within the usual topic boundries of each group you post to). Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio in those groups is quite low, and those who wish to carry on discussions are often subject to harassment by those who oppose them.

In the days before mass Internet access and SPAM (those massive postings to every group on the net), moderated groups were seen as a place where people could carry on reasonable conversations without the concern of flame-wars breaking out. The net was a fairly cozy place where people could carry out discussions without general harassment. You alsmost had to go looking for a flame war.

Once internet access became widespread, most of the ettiquite rules were forgotten - flaming, harassment and even organized campaigns against people or groups made discussions on serious but controversial topics nearly impossible. This drove more people into moderated groups to escape flames and harassment.

As for this specific group and my actions, I firmly believe that my views do not affect my moderation. If you do not think I am being fair, let me know. I'll do my best to resolve the problem. Please note that there is no leeway given to profanity or purposely offensive or disruptive postings under any circumstances. In other areas, where a judgement call is required, I try to err on the side of letting too much go by, instead of too little.

I do not exclude any viewpoint from the group, but I will refuse material that is intended soley to offend, harass, intimidate or otherwise disrupt the group. In the history of the group, only one person has been banned. This person repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks and attemtped to have the moderator's account removed when these attacks were rejected. One other person forged articles to the group and had his account suspended by his sys admins when I lodged a complaint, after he refused to follow the rules for moderated groups. [Write me for details of either of these incidents]

Please note that either of these two individuals would be welcome if they agreed to abide by the Charter of the group.

In addition, from time to time, topics are taken "off the table." This happens when a topic overruns the group and has been hashed out fully by both sides. Two examples of this are debates on homosexuality and the deity/non-deity of Jesus. This is not meant to censor a viewpoint, as posts from ALL sides will be blocked for a period of time (generally 3 months, sometimes longer). At this time, all posts relating to origins are being directed to talk.origins. I do not expect to lift this restriction in the near future.

What about the moderator? What does he believe?

In the interests of openness, you should know that I am an Orthodox Christian. Specifically, I am under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, His Beatitude IGNATIUS IV and His Emminence Metropolitan Archbishop PHILIP of North America, in the Antiochian Christian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America. If you really want to know more, you can get a lengthy answer here.

Back