Usage Guidelines: Be respectful of others' religion

[Bryan]

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.

There is no desire to be bias in this manner-- if there is bias in either the guidelines or in moderation I'd be interested in the specifics of it.

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 agree with your point, which isn't mutually exclusive to mine, so there is no problem.

I get what you're getting at, but I think its more trouble than its worth.

As said, it's based on a lot of feedback, so many do think it's worth the trouble.

What if you refuse to label someone what they choose to self-label as?

It's all the same logic, just the situation is flipped.

[mosquitobite]

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sowing_discord

[Bryan]

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.

This isn't Political Correctness, it's being clear with your terms.

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.

None of this is about me.

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.)

I agree with the free market solution, in our case here however it's limited by our Mission Statement. Many years of data has shown that the old, more open policy was a distraction to our primary objectives. Every point in the site Usage Guidelines is here to optimize the free market solution and our Mission Statement. That's always my goal at least.

[Bryan]

The rule may be fine depending on how loosely interpreted it is.

Agreed, there is still some room for interpretation, just at this point the lines are a little better drawn. Feel free to let me know if you see it going "too far" in any cases.

I don't remember getting any such email, but maybe I did.

It's not that you get an e-mail, it's that when you come to the site and see a ban message it provides an e-mail address that you can send a message to.

Just for curiosity, what does this entail?

Right now this forum can only be seen if you are a signed in member. Guest can not see it. (Try logging out). We're looking to make it available to guests (which resolves the ban issue as well).

[GunnyFreedom]

I wasn't actually sold on this until I read the forum member calling us all "ignorant christfucks." While I would still prefer it were unnecessary, I can certainly see how allowing that kind of thing here would damage our political reach, and possibly the impact of libertarianism on the GOP and electoral politics in general.

[Tod]

For over a decade I frequented a forum that had various owners over the years and people frequently discussed off-topics such as politics and religion. The latest owners decided to clamp down on what were often lively and very interesting discussions because occasionally people would dip to insults. Previous owners were pretty good about limiting crackdowns to the name-callers, but the current ones started curbing discussions of the topics, especially when the views expressed did not correspond to their own. Quite a few of the most interesting forum members got fed up with the heavy handed and biased moderating and moved on (I don't count myself in the group of interesting members; just one of the members who got fed up with the bias and loss of interesting discussion).

The thing with religion is that it is faith-based and one of the examples Bryan has spelled out in his OP:

"God does not exist" -- not respectful since you are declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.

comes across as biased against religion itself despite appearing to "punish" atheists who might make that statement.

So specs, my concern is not about a rule against being "uncivil", it is about heavy handed and apparent bias in the enforcement of the rules.

[TER]

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

Good post. I confess I am guilty of being a bit confrontational lately, posting when it would be better to keep my mouth shut (or keep my fingers inactive as it were). Christmas is in two days and all these arguments and debates are ruining the spirit of peace we as Christians should be sharing in this holy time. I know I have played a big role in this and I am sorry. I ask forgiveness from all those whom I have offended recently (especially erowe, if he can read this) and for all those whose peace has been disrupted by my posts. I wish everyone a blessed and merry Christmas!

[Christian Liberty]

I wasn't actually sold on this until I read the forum member calling us all "ignorant christfucks." While I would still prefer it were unnecessary, I can certainly see how allowing that kind of thing here would damage our political reach, and possibly the impact of libertarianism on the GOP and electoral politics in general.

If the only intent of this was to combat crap like that than I could agree with it. That's completely different than the kind of intense theological debate (Which sometimes includes identifying people as wolves in sheep's clothing) that I'm talking about.

@Bryan- Will let you know in any specific cases as they come up (if they come up.) As for the perceived bias, if you look up Sola's last post you can see what his issue was. Essentially, some people here view religion and faith as a "Separate" topic while others view it as something that effects and relates to something else.

In this particular thread, you had a logical (Note that this does not mean that I agreed with it) critique of the idea of "science" posted in the science forum, and it was moved to the religion forum despite the fact that the thread itself did not specifically mention Christianity, just poking (perceived) holes in the scientific method.

I don't usually care where forums are placed, and this didn't bother me that much. Its possible that Sola was going to leave anyway, but it was that mod decision that encouraged him to do so.

[dannno]

Stating things like the (insert religion here) faith is the Temple of Satan is unacceptable. Unless of course, they are Satanists!

So if they are Free Masons, then......

[oyarde]

I am not even sure most of the " relgion" in the world would even meet my defination of religion . This is all very confusing . Good luck everyone. I see Bryans point.Merry Christmas to everyone .

[jmdrake]

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.

I agree somewhat. I don't think saying "God doesn't exist" is any more offensive than saying "Jesus Christ is Lord and the only way to escape hell." Either statement is equally offensive/non-offensive to the person that doesn't believe it. No a saying like "God is a fairly tale made up by bronze aged nomads who needed something to pass the time because they were out there so long that their sheep were starting to look sexy."...well that's probably pushing it a little too far.

[jmdrake]

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.

I noticed that religion, science and technology, etc were moved out of the "miscellaneous" section so I figured you were headed that way. Since we're talking about this, I think the "Hot Topics" policy is confusing. A mainstream media article about Saudi Arabia possibly being redacted from the 9/11 commission report is "Hot Topics"? That's not "conspiracy theory". But hey, it's your baby.

[jmdrake]

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.

Have you ever looked up the definition of the word "cult"?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t

cult
[kuhlt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

By its original meaning, just about every religious group is a "cult".

Of course do to its common usage the meaning has expanded.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Hmmmmm....so if its "unorthodox" or "spurious" then its a cult. Who defines what is "unorthodox"? Are TER and heavenlyboy the only non cult members because they belong to "Orthodox" Christianity? (Yes, that even leaves out Catholics).

Of course what most people think of:
cult
noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

Ah...cults are "extreme" and "dangerous". Hmmmm....sounds like attacks aimed at Ron Paul supporters. (See my sig with the rant from the YouTube village idiot "The Amazing Atheist"). Okay. You want to warn people about groups that are "extreme" and "dangerous". Think of all of the groups that get labeled cults. How many of them are really extreme or dangerous?

[Natural Citizen]

In this particular thread, you had a logical (Note that this does not mean that I agreed with it) critique of the idea of "science" posted in the science forum, and it was moved to the religion forum despite the fact that the thread itself did not specifically mention Christianity, just poking (perceived) holes in the scientific method.

I don't usually care where forums are placed, and this didn't bother me that much. Its possible that Sola was going to leave anyway, but it was that mod decision that encouraged him to do so.

The beauty of that paper was the fact that it provided a platform for intelligent debate that allowed for both sides in the political scientific and religious community to come together. I've sat in rooms filled with scientists who were both faithful as well as those who were not and some of the most practical synergy for both came from those discussions and beneficial to a common cause. But we have to be able to see the forest for the trees as a whole and this cannot ever be accomplished if we have rogue lumberjacks coming behind us and chopping down everything in sight for the mill. You know? What are you left with then? Best to keep them in place and learn to maneuver them accordingly.

I don't know. Maybe that makes sense.

[Christian Liberty]

Have you ever looked up the definition of the word "cult"?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t

cult
[kuhlt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

By its original meaning, just about every religious group is a "cult".

Of course do to its common usage the meaning has expanded.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Hmmmmm....so if its "unorthodox" or "spurious" then its a cult. Who defines what is "unorthodox"? Are TER and heavenlyboy the only non cult members because they belong to "Orthodox" Christianity? (Yes, that even leaves out Catholics).

Of course what most people think of:
cult
noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

Ah...cults are "extreme" and "dangerous". Hmmmm....sounds like attacks aimed at Ron Paul supporters. (See my sig with the rant from the YouTube village idiot "The Amazing Atheist"). Okay. You want to warn people about groups that are "extreme" and "dangerous". Think of all of the groups that get labeled cults. How many of them are really extreme or dangerous?

First of all, let me be clear here that I really don't know what the big deal with the SDA is, or how much of what SF said about them was actually accurate, so I'm not addressing them one way or another here. I know Sola thought that any group that rejected limited atonement was a cult, so that played into some of his thinking (And would also lead to MANY mainline protestant and evangelical protestant churches being labeled as "cults") and I don't agree with that. That said, if a group claims to be Christian, yet teaches a gospel completely contrary to the Biblical one, I'd call them a cult. That's the only definition I've ever heard for "cult" in a Christian community. I've never heard that it has to be about controlling people in any way.

(For what its worth, the book I have and have looked at about cults, "Kingdom of the Cults" argues that the SDA is NOT a cult, just for what its worth.)

[jllundqu]

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.

LMAO! "False Religions" "Cults" HAHAHAA!!!!!!! You guys kill me..... and make me sad at the same time.

[jllundqu]

So if they are Free Masons, then......

lol.... Well as a mason, I can say that Freemasonry is not a religion (certainly not satanic) so say what thou wilt about it!

I agree with Bryan. This forum has a mission statement and goals. Whatever detracts from that and divides us rather than brings us together should be avoided. A simple case of respect for others views is all that is needed, but for those that insist on proselytizing and mocking those with different views... well... there's no getting thru to you.

[erowe1]

lol.... Well as a mason, I can say that Freemasonry is not a religion

Why do Freemasons always say this?

[jllundqu]

Why do Freemasons always say this?

Well not to get too off topic from the OP, but Freemasons accept men from all religions and expect those men to be faithful and true to their religion be it Christianity, Buddhist, Mindu, Muslim, or other, while being tolerant of everyone else's religion. This way the entire debate we are having can be avoided. Good men of faith, from all religions, come together under one roof and work toward the betterment of mankind. That way religion becomes a unifying force rather than a destructive and dividing one, as is evidenced by this very thread.

PM me if you are serious and want to continue this discussion.

[oyarde]

LMAO! "False Religions" "Cults" HAHAHAA!!!!!!! You guys kill me..... and make me sad at the same time.

I agree , I encourage all of the heathen Libertarians to continue to fight for Linberty , lol. One of my better friends is an Athiest and we do not really discuss it much . We can find common ground in the tyranny and theft of govt .

[jmdrake]

First of all, let me be clear here that I really don't know what the big deal with the SDA is, or how much of what SF said about them was actually accurate, so I'm not addressing them one way or another here. I know Sola thought that any group that rejected limited atonement was a cult, so that played into some of his thinking (And would also lead to MANY mainline protestant and evangelical protestant churches being labeled as "cults") and I don't agree with that. That said, if a group claims to be Christian, yet teaches a gospel completely contrary to the Biblical one, I'd call them a cult. That's the only definition I've ever heard for "cult" in a Christian community. I've never heard that it has to be about controlling people in any way.

(For what its worth, the book I have and have looked at about cults, "Kingdom of the Cults" argues that the SDA is NOT a cult, just for what its worth.)

Hello FF. So according to your definition the Moonies aren't a cult because the don't claim to be Christian right? And the Catholics are a cult because they teach a gospel contrary to what you believe to be true? Really, you're proving my point. The word "cult" is in the eye of the beholder. But it is an ad hominem because when people think of the word "cult" they think of "Jim Jones' kool-aid drinkers" as opposed to "someone who disagrees with my understanding about who Jesus saves and how." And yes, I know that SDAs aren't listed in "The Kingdom of the Cults". I'm not sure why that even matters though because I don't consider the book to really be authoritative about anything. Someone writes a book that calls this group or that group a "cult" and I should care because....? The Southern Poverty Law Center goes around labeling groups they don't like "hate groups" as well. Equally meaningless IMO.

One other thing that I find interesting. In the other thread when you called the Orthodox church a "satan-something", you said it was because they didn't condemn universalism or something like that. Then TER pointed out that in fact the Orthodox church DID condemn universalism. Did that new bit of information have any affect on you? As an SDA I've probably had more "anti-Catholic" church upbringing than most. And while the Orthodox church is certainly different than the Catholic church, there are elements common to both that I strongly disagree with. That said, some of my preconceived notions have been dispelled and others have been confirmed. That's the way life works I suppose. It's interesting that after Sola_Fide found out I was SDA, he at first attacked me, but then he went into "Well, as an SDA won't you join with me in Catholic bashing?" mode. I found that...well...odd to say the least. TER and eduardo can tell you for certain that I have disagreed with them strongly and will likely continue to do so. But we've found ways to do it in an agreeable manner. I think that's what Bryan is trying to see happen in general. And no, I am certainly not a model of Christian brotherhood. I have learned something from TER about being gracious in disagreeing with someone else.

[Christian Liberty]

Well not to get too off topic from the OP, but Freemasons accept men from all religions and expect those men to be faithful and true to their religion be it Christianity, Buddhist, Mindu, Muslim, or other, while being tolerant of everyone else's religion. This way the entire debate we are having can be avoided. Good men of faith, from all religions, come together under one roof and work toward the betterment of mankind. That way religion becomes a unifying force rather than a destructive and dividing one, as is evidenced by this very thread.

PM me if you are serious and want to continue this discussion.

What you don't understand is that it is this very "tolerance" that makes the freemasons satanic. There is only one Truth, not many.

I don't believe freemasons knowingly worship Satan, but in preaching "tolerance" they are unknowingly playing into his hands.

Hello FF. So according to your definition the Moonies aren't a cult because the don't claim to be Christian right?

I don't know who the Moonies are, but I wouldn't call a non-Christian group a cult if they didn't claim to be Christian, I'd simply call them non-Christians. Their eternal destiny is the same, of course, presuming they do not repent and believe the gospel before the end of their earthly lives.

And the Catholics are a cult because they teach a gospel contrary to what you believe to be true? Really, you're proving my point. The word "cult" is in the eye of the beholder. But it is an ad hominem because when people think of the word "cult" they think of "Jim Jones' kool-aid drinkers" as opposed to "someone who disagrees with my understanding about who Jesus saves and how."

I have never, ever thought of the word "cult" in the latter sense. That's probably a more sensible definition though. Probably better to just call them non-Christians and be done with it.

And yes, I know that SDAs aren't listed in "The Kingdom of the Cults". I'm not sure why that even matters though because I don't consider the book to really be authoritative about anything.

Neither do I, I just don't know enough about the SA to make a judgment.

Someone writes a book that calls this group or that group a "cult" and I should care because....? The Southern Poverty Law Center goes around labeling groups they don't like "hate groups" as well. Equally meaningless IMO.

One other thing that I find interesting. In the other thread when you called the Orthodox church a "satan-something", you said it was because they didn't condemn universalism or something like that. Then TER pointed out that in fact the Orthodox church DID condemn universalism. Did that new bit of information have any affect on you?

I've talked to an EO who was convinced universalism is true, and I know some of the early "fathers" that the EOs revere so much were universalists (I don't consider those people Christians either, for the record.) That said, TER may well be right, I'd have to read the thing he posted. That info might have had an effect on me if that was the only reason I called their churches "Satanic Temples", but it isn't. Most of my criticisms of the RCC could be flung at the EOs as well.

As an SDA I've probably had more "anti-Catholic" church upbringing than most. And while the Orthodox church is certainly different than the Catholic church, there are elements common to both that I strongly disagree with. That said, some of my preconceived notions have been dispelled and others have been confirmed. That's the way life works I suppose. It's interesting that after Sola_Fide found out I was SDA, he at first attacked me, but then he went into "Well, as an SDA won't you join with me in Catholic bashing?" mode. I found that...well...odd to say the least.

The only way I can understand that is if its an "at least be consistent with yourself" type of thing. I've argued that way before. For instance, I'm not a theonomic reconstructionist, and I do not believe theonomic reconstructionism is Biblical. However, I have called on certain theonomic reconstructionists that I've debated with to agree with me on certain issues based on their own standard. For instance, for a reconstructionist to support drug laws, or oppose idolatry laws, seems inconsistent to me, since the OT does have idolatry laws but does not have any drug laws (I've argued with thenomists who support drug laws and not idolatry laws, as the context here shows). Now, I don't support drug laws or idolatry laws, but I'm not a theonomist.

TER and eduardo can tell you for certain that I have disagreed with them strongly and will likely continue to do so. But we've found ways to do it in an agreeable manner. I think that's what Bryan is trying to see happen in general. And no, I am certainly not a model of Christian brotherhood. I have learned something from TER about being gracious in disagreeing with someone else.

The difference between me and you is that I believe certain things are essential gospel doctrine and that both the RCC and EO churches reject things that fall under essential gospel doctrine. I do not view either as being any more Christian than Muslims or Buddhists.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree , I encourage all of the heathen Libertarians to continue to fight for Linberty , lol. One of my better friends is an Athiest and we do not really discuss it much . We can find common ground in the tyranny and theft of govt .

I can work with someone on anything we have common ground with, as long as it doesn't contradict any Christian principles. To work politically with non-Christians on issues we agree on isn't contradicting any Christian principles, IMO. Doesn't change the fact that I'd tell them that they are lost without Jesus Christ, which is a different issue entirely.

[amy31416]

No human being, including you FF, has THE truth. And you don't even seem to try to model yourself after Jesus when it comes to wisdom or humility--both of which I consider telltale signs of a genuine Christian, not the technical aspects of various sects.

[erowe1]

No human being, including you FF, has THE truth.

Isn't that the truth!

[kathy88]

No human being, including you FF, has THE truth. And you don't even seem to try to model yourself after Jesus when it comes to wisdom or humility--both of which I consider telltale signs of a genuine Christian, not the technical aspects of various sects.

Ain't enough rep for this. But you got what I had to give.

[heavenlyboy34]

No human being, including you FF, has THE truth. And you don't even seem to try to model yourself after Jesus when it comes to wisdom or humility--both of which I consider telltale signs of a genuine Christian, not the technical aspects of various sects.

This^^

[Christian Liberty]

Isn't that the truth!

Yeah, that comment is a statement of absolute truth. Which is the same hypocrisy as the whole "Tolerance... except for intolerance" paradox I've mentioned before.

That said, I have never, ever claimed to have the absolute truth on everything. I'd be shocked if I wasn't wrong about anything. I am almost certainly wrong about something. But I am not wrong on the gospel.

[amy31416]

Yeah, that comment is a statement of absolute truth. Which is the same hypocrisy as the whole "Tolerance... except for intolerance" paradox I've mentioned before.

That said, I have never, ever claimed to have the absolute truth on everything. I'd be shocked if I wasn't wrong about anything. I am almost certainly wrong about something. But I am not wrong on the gospel.

Woosh goes the joke!

I read a bit of your blog, and you make a LOT of absolute truth statements--and you even make one in your second paragraph. You could certainly be wrong on the gospel--it's translated by flawed humans, written by flawed humans and translated again by your flawed self.

But, I have a feeling that chatting with you about your hubris and lack of wisdom in these regards is pointless. Good luck and Merry Christmas.