Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59

Thread: Usage Guidelines: Be respectful of others' religion

  1. #1

    Default Usage Guidelines: Be respectful of others' religion

    What about when two religions are in conflict and the mere statement of a tenet of your OWN faith amounts to "disrespecting" another religion?

    You have opened a can of worms that will only drive people away from the forum, imo, Bryan. Good luck with that.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I think what Bryan is saying is, making statements like " I disagree with your belief in this and that" is okay as long as your are respectful.

    Stating things like the (insert religion here) faith is the Temple of Satan is unacceptable. Unless of course, they are Satanists!
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  4. #3

    Default

    I'm against this section of the rules. Its Bryan's forum, of course, and he can do what he likes. But I really think to some extent "attacks" on other religions really needs to be fair game in the religion forum. Sometimes maybe it can cross a line, but normally I think its just people lacking a thick skin. False religions should be exposed as such, and I think this policy is going to make it harder for Biblical Christians to engage in debates, if we are unable to expose cults as being such.

    Now, I understand if the "attacks" get personal it can cross a line. Even as a theist I don't think "God does not exist" is "offensive", at least not any more so than someone, say, supporting abortion rights is "offensive". To some extent maybe it is, but you engage them, you don't report them. Or at least, I wouldn't.

    If it crossed into personal insults (ie. If someone said "All Catholics are idiots" or "You're an idiot because of your religion" or stuff like that) I can see the mods getting involved, but as long as the attacks are doctrinal in nature, or even "personal" attacks in a doctrinal context (For example, if a Catholic were to say that Protestants weren't Christians or that Protestant churches weren't real churches,) this sort of thing should be fair game

    Note that I'm simply sharing my opinion here, not telling Bryan what to do. I also haven't gotten in trouble for this as of yet, more anticipating future issues.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I'm against this section of the rules. Its Bryan's forum, of course, and he can do what he likes. But I really think to some extent "attacks" on other religions really needs to be fair game in the religion forum. Sometimes maybe it can cross a line, but normally I think its just people lacking a thick skin. False religions should be exposed as such, and I think this policy is going to make it harder for Biblical Christians to engage in debates, if we are unable to expose cults as being such.

    Now, I understand if the "attacks" get personal it can cross a line. Even as a theist I don't think "God does not exist" is "offensive", at least not any more so than someone, say, supporting abortion rights is "offensive". To some extent maybe it is, but you engage them, you don't report them. Or at least, I wouldn't.

    If it crossed into personal insults (ie. If someone said "All Catholics are idiots" or "You're an idiot because of your religion" or stuff like that) I can see the mods getting involved, but as long as the attacks are doctrinal in nature, or even "personal" attacks in a doctrinal context (For example, if a Catholic were to say that Protestants weren't Christians or that Protestant churches weren't real churches,) this sort of thing should be fair game

    Note that I'm simply sharing my opinion here, not telling Bryan what to do. I also haven't gotten in trouble for this as of yet, more anticipating future issues.
    lol, the worst offender gives his two cents!
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  6. #5
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Thanks for the note. The intent and purpose is for members to be respectful of each other and their religion when you are approaching them and responding to their position. Yes, two religions can be in conflict and mere statements could be considered "disrespecting", but the members can still be amicable when discussing the matter. That's the key issue and point, I'm open to feedback on how to make it more clear.

    FYI, this has been on the books for a short while now, so nothing new other than a reminder.

    Thanks!
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  7. #6

    Default

    I had an interesting discussion about this with my fundamentalist aunt recently. She is very conservative and because of that is a minority in my family. I'm Buddhist and so disagree with her religious beliefs but realize that her Christian beliefs cause her to be a good person and have a lot of good perspectives on life. Generally I like her and we get along well. But she crossed the line in proselytizing to me in a disrespectful manner once too many times. So one day I decided to to let her know exactly how Buddhism is absolutely superior to Christianity. I prefixed it with the point that I don't want her to be a Buddhist because she makes a better Christian than she would be a Buddhist. After that she seems to have backed off a bit. So I'm happy about the Christians who are good people because of their faith and I want them to stay Christians. But if you push me I will respectfully shoot your faith full of holes in 3 seconds.
    Last edited by LukeP; 12-22-2013 at 09:46 PM.

  8. #7

    Default

    I think people should be free to post things like, "God doesn't exist."

    And they should be free to be as stubborn and belligerent about it as they want.

    Sometimes these people are lashing out at God because they're really seeking answers. Letting them do that can work out for the better, and stopping them from doing it might cause a missed opportunity.

  9. #8
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    But I really think to some extent "attacks" on other religions really needs to be fair game in the religion forum. Sometimes maybe it can cross a line, but normally I think its just people lacking a thick skin.
    What is certainly fair game is to ask other people to support their position on religion. There is no need to attack, if someones religion can lead to bad things then someone skilled in the art of debate can draw that out into the public without any sort of attack.

    False religions should be exposed as such, and I think this policy is going to make it harder for Biblical Christians to engage in debates, if we are unable to expose cults as being such.
    Labeling something as a cult is just an ad hominem attack with no positive debate value. Again, see my first point.

    If it crossed into personal insults (ie. If someone said "All Catholics are idiots" or "You're an idiot because of your religion" or stuff like that) I can see the mods getting involved, but as long as the attacks are doctrinal in nature, or even "personal" attacks in a doctrinal context (For example, if a Catholic were to say that Protestants weren't Christians or that Protestant churches weren't real churches,) this sort of thing should be fair game
    These matters can be easily defeated in friendly debate. If someone says that the simple response is "Says who?" The matter will quickly reveal an appeal to authority fallacy and/or devolve into a pointless matter of semantics that the OP can't prove to validate his point.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeP View Post
    But if you push me I will respectfully shoot your faith full of holes in 3 seconds.
    Push.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Labeling something as a cult is just an ad hominem attack with no positive debate value. Again, see my first point.
    I'm not a big poster in this forum but I don't think labeling something as a cult is ad hominem, it is a very valid religious issue. Granted, the claim ought to be justified.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeP View Post
    I had an interesting discussion about this with my fundamentalist aunt recently. She is very conservative and because of that is a minority in my family. I'm Buddhist and so disagree with her religious beliefs but realize that her Christian beliefs cause her to be a good person and have a lot of good perspectives on life. Generally I like her and we get along well. But she crossed the line in proselytizing to me in a disrespectful manner once too many times. So one day I decided to to let her know exactly how Buddhism is absolutely superior to Christianity. I prefixed it with the point that I don't want her to be a Buddhist because she makes a better Christian than she would be a Buddhist. After that she seems to have backed off a bit. So I'm happy about the Christians who are good people because of their faith and I want them to stay Christians. But if you push me I will respectfully shoot your faith full of holes in 3 seconds.
    If I understand the Buddha correctly, he wouldn't approve of such an aggressive approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  13. #12

    Default

    I think Christians fail their faith when all people see is discord and attacks. If you feel lead to criticize others denomination in a manner that others see as Pharisaical, well you are not being a light. You are not sharing the Good News. You are not helping anyone come to Christ.

    I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that hundreds of others are WATCHING. It is not just a debate between FF and Eduardo (names are but an example). It is a debate that, to the unsaved, does not look Christian, at all. It looks like a fight between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

    I just felt the need to get that off my chest.
    Last edited by mosquitobite; 12-22-2013 at 10:02 PM.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    lol, the worst offender gives his two cents!
    Sola_Fide needs to come back so I won't have this badge of honor/shame anymore

    Seriously though, I have no doubt I was in mind here. I also admit that I have no respect for doctrines of demons, whatever they may be. Which is my point to begin with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    What is certainly fair game is to ask other people to support their position on religion. There is no need to attack, if someones religion can lead to bad things then someone skilled in the art of debate can draw that out into the public without any sort of attack.


    Labeling something as a cult is just an ad hominem attack with no positive debate value. Again, see my first point.
    If no reason was presented, this might be true. But exposing false beliefs, with reasons, can be beneficial (And I don't think every single reason needs to be fleshed out in every sngle case, in some cases one or two reasons are sufficient.)

    For instance, if I posted "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, as such Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and not saved" that could be seen as "offensive" but so what?

    On the other hand, I guess if I posted "Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult" without any reasons at all that might be seen as inflammatory, although I'm still not sure why that shouldn't be allowed. As you say, a skilled debater can destroy logically baseless arguments anyway, why do we need a rule here?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post
    You have opened a can of worms that will only drive people away from the forum, imo, Bryan. Good luck with that.
    If somebody leaves the forum because of the rules which basically amount to "Don't be an $#@! to each other". Then so be it; we'll all be better off.

  16. #15
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeP View Post
    ...So I'm happy about the Christians who are good people because of their faith and I want them to stay Christians. But if you push me I will respectfully shoot your faith full of holes in 3 seconds.
    I'd be interested to hear this, just in another thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I think people should be free to post things like, "God doesn't exist."

    And they should be free to be as stubborn and belligerent about it as they want.

    Sometimes these people are lashing out at God because they're really seeking answers. Letting them do that can work out for the better, and stopping them from doing it might cause a missed opportunity.
    Good point, thanks for the note. As always, without writing 1,000 page guideline manual, it's hard to be exact. Some of this does come down to perceived intent (are they being obviously disruptive), context and scope (are they posting in every thread?). So, as always, mods need to use good judgement, and the moderation appeal process can still work too.

    Thanks!
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  17. #16

    Default

    I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that hundreds of others are WATCHING. It is not just a debate between FF and Eduardo (names are but an example). It is a debate that, to the unsaved, does not look Christian, at all. It looks like a fight between the Pharisee and the Sadducees.
    The problem here is the presupposition that everyone who says they are a Christian actually is one. If I had the same type and style of debate that I have with eduardo against someone because they believed in a different eschatological view than me, or because they believed in paedobaptism, I would understand your point. Which gets back to what I was talking about initially, essential gospel issues. No, we're not going to agree on that here, which is why I think this rule is honestly silly (No offense Bryan.) I just don't get the point here. We should be thick skinned enough to not get easily offended here.

    I'd settle for "no personal attacks", or even better "no baseless personal attacks" but even the former would be fine.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post



    Good point, thanks for the note. As always, without writing 1,000 page guideline manual, it's hard to be exact. Some of this does come down to perceived intent (are they being obviously disruptive), context and scope (are they posting in every thread?). So, as always, mods need to use good judgement, and the moderation appeal process can still work too.

    Thanks!
    The one time I got banned, I believe one of my posts was seriously misunderstood, and I believe it could have been understood in context. Not that I'm still upset about this now, or anything like this, but the problem is, without the ability to even view the forum or PM while banned, its very hard to easily appeal a ban. Not that I plan on getting banned again, but in case it does happen, I feel like you should be able to PM, or at least PM the administrators, while serving a ban, as well as being able to view the forum (Primarily so that evidence can be presented, otherwise you could obviously just log out). Not having that option makes appealing anything more trouble than it should be, IMO. I've been on other forums that allowed PMs while banned and I don't see any good reason why you shouldn't be able to do so. Obviously there could be exceptions, like if someone was using the PM system to harass people, or something like that.

    I know this is sort of off topic, but you saying what you said just made me think of that.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  19. #18
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    I'm not a big poster in this forum but I don't think labeling something as a cult is ad hominem, it is a very valid religious issue. Granted, the claim ought to be justified.
    IMO, if you put a label on any thing/person/entity/etc that they don't self-label themselves as with the purpose to demonize/attack/etc then it's an ad hominem. I understand it's hard to get around using labels in some conversations as they can be a tool for mutual understanding but in a debate, they are problematic.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem here is the presupposition that everyone who says they are a Christian actually is one. If I had the same type and style of debate that I have with eduardo against someone because they believed in a different eschatological view than me, or because they believed in paedobaptism, I would understand your point. Which gets back to what I was talking about initially, essential gospel issues. No, we're not going to agree on that here, which is why I think this rule is honestly silly (No offense Bryan.) I just don't get the point here. We should be thick skinned enough to not get easily offended here.

    I'd settle for "no personal attacks", or even better "no baseless personal attacks" but even the former would be fine.
    The thing is, (and this goes to the others as well) you are never going to change your opponents beliefs unless God softens someone's heart. You are never going to save someone by debating them. Right? Did Paul change because someone debated him?

    None of us know God's plan for the other.

    In every thread, especially those in the religion forum, you should be cognizant of how you portray YOUR faith to those lurking and reading. FF, you and I agree way more in our beliefs than I do with some of the others, but I will admonish you now for not being very Christlike in your approach. Your sole purpose on this earth is to bring others to come to know your Savior, no? Ask yourself if your attacks are serving that purpose.

    With love,
    Mosquitobite
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    If somebody leaves the forum because of the rules which basically amount to "Don't be an $#@! to each other". Then so be it; we'll all be better off.
    I'm not threatening to leave. Although I know Sola_Fide left because of what he perceived as a bias on the part of the moderation with regards to scientific topics VS religious ones. It never bothered me the way it bothered him, but I understood his point, even if I thought it was ridiculous that he left over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    IMO, if you put a label on any thing/person/entity/etc that they don't self-label themselves as with the purpose to demonize/attack/etc then it's an ad hominem. I understand it's hard to get around using labels in some conversations as they can be a tool for mutual understanding but in a debate, they are problematic.

    One problem with your thinking here, IMO, is that usually in forum debates you're trying to convince the undecided reader moreso than the person you're actually arguing with, at least some of the time.

    I get what you're getting at, but I think its more trouble than its worth. What if you refuse to label someone what they choose to self-label as? For instance, I refuse to label unitarians, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, baptismal regenerationists, or others as "Christians", even though they self label as such, because of the doctrines they teach. Is it being "inflammatory" to say that these groups aren't Christians because they deny the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone, or other doctrines that I believe would fall under Galatians 1:8-9?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    The thing is, (and this goes to the others as well) you are never going to change your opponents beliefs unless God softens someone's heart. You are never going to save someone by debating them. Right? Did Paul change because someone debated him?

    None of us know God's plan for the other.

    In every thread, especially those in the religion forum, you should be cognizant of how you portray YOUR faith to those lurking and reading. FF, you and I agree way more in our beliefs than I do with some of the others, but I will admonish you now for not being very Christlike in your approach. Your sole purpose on this earth is to bring others to come to know your Savior, no? Ask yourself if your attacks are serving that purpose.

    With love,
    Mosquitobite
    Hi.

    I agree with you that I have no idea whether a given person is elect or not, whether they be Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, or whatever else. But no Christian would suggest that the latter two groups are regenerate. My stance toward Catholics (Here defined as someone who actually holds to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, not necessarily someone who ignorantly attends a Catholic Church) would be the same. Paul, similarly, was elect, but as Saul he was still an unregenerate God-hater.

    Paul's case was unique in that God himself audibly spoke to him. Salvation happens the same way for anyone else too, God alone regenerates them, but he uses the human preaching of the gospel as a means to that end.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  23. #22
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    If no reason was presented, this might be true. But exposing false beliefs, with reasons, can be beneficial (And I don't think every single reason needs to be fleshed out in every sngle case, in some cases one or two reasons are sufficient.)

    For instance, if I posted "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, as such Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and not saved" that could be seen as "offensive" but so what?
    If Jehovah's Witness doctrine agrees with your statement there certainly is not an issue. Your statement however, could more properly be stated as "Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and not saved in the Christian sense"


    On the other hand, I guess if I posted "Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult" without any reasons at all that might be seen as inflammatory, although I'm still not sure why that shouldn't be allowed. As you say, a skilled debater can destroy logically baseless arguments anyway, why do we need a rule here?
    Because we don't want the site to devolve to the lowest common detonator of who can cast the best insults, but rather we'd like to see who can construct the best arguments.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Sola_Fide needs to come back so I won't have this badge of honor/shame anymore
    9 out of 10 times these pointless fights go like this:

    Freedom Fanatic or/and/same difference Sola_Fide: You believe this (BS teaching FF or SF has been brainwashed with) belief.

    Opposing Christian Faith: No I don't.

    FF or SF: Your church teaches it.

    Opposing Christian faith: No it doesn't. This is our belief. (a long winded explanation) A few questions are returned for FF or SF

    FF and/or/samedifference SF disappears and will/can not refute statements nor answer questions. A week later SF/FF make the same lie, cycle repeats.

    Personally, I'm done arguing religion. I'll discuss it with others who have a bit of sense who may disagree, but I will not argue. I'll just point out the threads where the same people have already been refuted for the 100th time.

  25. #24

    Default

    I rest my case.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Hi.

    I agree with you that I have no idea whether a given person is elect or not, whether they be Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, or whatever else. But no Christian would suggest that the latter two groups are regenerate. My stance toward Catholics (Here defined as someone who actually holds to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, not necessarily someone who ignorantly attends a Catholic Church) would be the same. Paul, similarly, was elect, but as Saul he was still an unregenerate God-hater.

    Paul's case was unique in that God himself audibly spoke to him. Salvation happens the same way for anyone else too, God alone regenerates them, but he uses the human preaching of the gospel as a means to that end.

  26. #25
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    No, we're not going to agree on that here, which is why I think this rule is honestly silly (No offense Bryan.) I just don't get the point here. We should be thick skinned enough to not get easily offended here.
    This was added after hearing a lot of feedback on this. The issue isn't a matter of how thick skinned any one person on the site is, it's a general position that plays into our Mission Statement about being politically active.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    If Jehovah's Witness doctrine agrees with your statement there certainly is not an issue. Your statement however, could more properly be stated as "Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and not saved in the Christian sense"
    See, this is where I think (And please take this comment as respectfully as it is intneded) we fall into the PC game. Political Correctness is poison. Whether literally being applied to politics, or to theology.

    Just out of curiosity, are you a person of faith, Bryan? If not, you might not understand how religious people actually do believe that what we believe is THE truth, period.
    Because we don't want the site to devolve to the lowest common detonator of who can cast the best insults, but rather we'd like to see who can construct the best arguments.
    I see your point here. However, I think much like in real life, I think the free market solution is better than the "government" solution

    (I'm speaking pragmatically here, not philosophically. Philosophically, obviously you are the property owner of the forum and can set up any rules you wish.)
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    lol, the worst offender gives his two cents!
    lolz Sorry I'm out of +rep. :/
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  29. #28
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The one time I got banned, I believe one of my posts was seriously misunderstood, and I believe it could have been understood in context. Not that I'm still upset about this now, or anything like this, but the problem is, without the ability to even view the forum or PM while banned, its very hard to easily appeal a ban. Not that I plan on getting banned again, but in case it does happen, I feel like you should be able to PM, or at least PM the administrators, while serving a ban, as well as being able to view the forum (Primarily so that evidence can be presented, otherwise you could obviously just log out). Not having that option makes appealing anything more trouble than it should be, IMO. I've been on other forums that allowed PMs while banned and I don't see any good reason why you shouldn't be able to do so. Obviously there could be exceptions, like if someone was using the PM system to harass people, or something like that.

    I know this is sort of off topic, but you saying what you said just made me think of that.
    Members who are now banned are presented with a special e-mail address that they can use to appeal the ban.

    Also, the plan is for this forum to be "going public" at some point soon.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    This was added after hearing a lot of feedback on this. The issue isn't a matter of how thick skinned any one person on the site is, it's a general position that plays into our Mission Statement about being politically active.
    I wasn't trying to single out any one person in particular. Frankly, people here generally do have thicket skin than the average person. But I still think we can do better in that regard.

    The rule may be fine depending on how loosely interpreted it is. So far I haven't seen it interpreted in a way where I feel its a problem. However, as I explained, I think the appeal process is clunky if bans do occur (Since banned users can't use PMs or view the site) and I think it could be a problem if interpreted too literally. I agree that we don't want it to get into insult shouting matches. At the same point, I think there are times where "Disrespect" can actually be justified. maybe I'm in the minority on this one. Paul certainly had no respect for the Judaizers religion.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Members who are now banned are presented with a special e-mail address that they can use to appeal the ban.
    I don't remember getting any such email, but maybe I did.


    Also, the plan is for this forum to be "going public" at some point soon.
    Just for curiosity, what does this entail?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-22-2013, 09:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •