Seeking clarity

[William]

Hi

Recently I started a thread asking Forum Members whether they felt that is is entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...
...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

Unfortunately the thread started to go off on another tangent and when I tried to bring it back to the subject this did not help...even after I reported the fact.

So I decided the best course of action was to start another thread - this time asking Forum Members "Should people be allowed to continue to use their religious beliefs as a means to make personal attacks on others?"

The thread was quickly locked with the comment "Debating the rules in this fashion is close to challenging moderator action."

I don't think this is the case at all as I was not challenging moderator actions but seeking Forum Members opinions on whether they think that certain belief systems constitute Personal Attack, and if so, how this might be reflected in the rules to make sure that people do not use their beliefs as a means of being able to make personal attacks on other Members of this Forum, if the rules clearly do not allow for this to take place.

So for clarity, what is the stand re the rule 1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. ?

Does 'any' mean 'every' or is the instance where personal beliefs come into it mean that "in the case of personal beliefs being expressed at anyone, as to inform people that they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell, such expression is deemed not to be a personal attack?

Thank You.

William

[otseng]

The thread was quickly locked with the comment "Debating the rules in this fashion is close to challenging moderator action."

I don't think this is the case at all as I was not challenging moderator actions but seeking Forum Members opinions on whether they think that certain belief systems constitute Personal Attack, and if so, how this might be reflected in the rules to make sure that people do not use their beliefs as a means of being able to make personal attacks on other Members of this Forum, if the rules clearly do not allow for this to take place.

Since you explicitly quoted the rules, it appears you are debating the forum rules.

Does 'any' mean 'every' or is the instance where personal beliefs come into it mean that "in the case of personal beliefs being expressed at anyone, as to inform people that they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell, such expression is deemed not to be a personal attack?

We have to find a balance of permitting free debate and preventing uncivil discourse. This is not an easy task. Where the forum tries to make the balance is to not allow personal attacks such as, "You are damned and going to hell." But stating what the Bible says would be permitted. Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The problem is this can be considered an indirect attack. In this case, it would be a judgment call based on the context. For questionable cases, we often discuss it as a mod team on how to handle it.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by otseng]

Thank you for your reply in clarifying this otseng.

Since you explicitly quoted the rules, it appears you are debating the forum rules.

Yet I also made it clear that I was trying to find out what the rule meant by 'all forms of' and that was not in itself debating anything.

Asking Forums Members for their input wasn't asking them to question the rules.

We have to find a balance of permitting free debate and preventing uncivil discourse. This is not an easy task. Where the forum tries to make the balance is to not allow personal attacks such as, "You are damned and going to hell." But stating what the Bible says would be permitted. Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The problem is this can be considered an indirect attack. In this case, it would be a judgment call based on the context.

Another problem is that just because it is in the bible does not mean that it is truth or should be permitted to be regarded as truth. Even using the bible as a 'primary reference' is not in itself signifying that this reference is 'The Truth'.

Along with that problem is that there are different interpretations by Christians as to what Jesus and the bible meant in regard to hell, and becomes problematic when the non-established becomes a fixated established belief in some, that everyone was evil before they were even born and most of those are bound for eternal suffering and it is GOD who not only created hell, but who also puts people there.

That is debatable.

To those who believe such a thing, debating it is not an option. They are here to inform others of the fate in store for them, and this is what I am referring to as personal attack through use of belief. This intent is further understood when one shows - through argument - that their belief is faulty and they simply decline to reply [ignore], as the rules also permit this.

Then 'rinse and repeat'. They have a platform to work off and use it that way.

This amounts to the argument "I am right in how I interpret the bible and GOD is going to send you to hell where you will suffer for eternity." Generalizing it does not make it any less a personal attack.

The belief as interpreted is information which is dark aged, based in ignorance and evil of intent and in this age of enlightenment, should be considered unnecessary, insulting and intolerable in a debate setting, especially when it is seen to be consistently used as a preaching device. A personal attack on many individuals. An attack on a certain type of group.

These are things that I think may be going under the radar, and this is one reason I am attempting to bring it out into the light.

With respect.

William

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 3 by William]

Hi William,
I've often wondered why this would be offensive to anyone.

I totally get it if I was in a heated argument and someone said that I'm "a sinner and going to burn in hell". It would be akin to splashing gasoline at my feet and flicking the ol' metaphorical fiery lung-dart.

But if they honestly believe it to be true and aren't using it as an insult and said it in a less inflammatory way then why would that be any more offensive to me than if they were to say "if you don't believe in the FSM you will boil in the water pot for eternity".

I'd be like, "uh... ok"

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by AdHoc]

Hi William,

Greetings AdHoc

I've often wondered why this would be offensive to anyone.

Yes, you are not alone in that. Others have asked the same question in the thread I started re this.

My answer is that it isn't about what we each find offensive, but what actually we all should realistically collectively agree to as offensive.
In relation to this message board, there are no specific regulations which do so.

However, from my perspective, of all the message boards I have given time and input to, this one shines as something of an anomaly due to what it so far has implemented which is helpful to respectful interaction plus other bonuses such as Members Notes.

In light of this, I think it is worth the risk (of being gagged or banned) to pursue the idea of open-endedness as apposed to dogmatism and in that I find it almost miraculous and certainly amazing that I haven't already been shown the door given my subject matter and particular religious views - what I call religious anyway..but incidentally what was - only hours ago on this message board - called 'Cultism' and my accuser not even bending let alone breaking any rules for that!

...unless of course it contravenes the 'be respectful to others' rule... Rules and lack consistency re the rules, can be confusing for that...

Which gets me to my point that if someone like myself not being 'Christian' or 'atheist' but still 'theist' has an issue with the rules because I am being held accountable on the one hand and allowed to be insulted on the other, because - simply put - the rules don't cover someone in my position so I am a target on account of that.

As as a target, I have to risk the possibility of being gagged or banned, so have to watch my step when broaching subject matter to table anything which I feel is pertinent and perhaps disadvantaging me due to my particular position in the scheme of things.

If I felt that no one on this board was interested in hearing such from me, I would not be taking the risk. But that is not the case.

I totally get it if I was in a heated argument and someone said that I'm "a sinner and going to burn in hell". It would be akin to splashing gasoline at my feet and flicking the ol' metaphorical fiery lung-dart.

Might as well get the fire going since hell is where one is bound, so sayth the fire-starters....

But if they honestly believe it to be true and aren't using it as an insult and said it in a less inflammatory way then why would that be any more offensive to me than if they were to say "if you don't believe in the FSM you will boil in the water pot for eternity".

I'd be like, "uh... ok"

I see conflation in this argument.

If someone honestly believes that all gays will be sent to hell by GOD because they are evil, and expressed that, what do the rules say regarding this? Would it be deemed offensive or not?

Preaching perhaps?

Are those who believe in the FSM serious about their beliefs and in that would they seriously add to their dogma the belief that "if you don't believe in the FSM you will boil in the water pot for eternity"?

Is your particular argument that if one doesn't take any religion seriously one need not acknowledge the offences committed by those who do, simply because one doesn't take it seriously?

One of the requirements my theology follows is this;

[font=Comic Sans MS]I am revealed to you in hopes that you will reveal to others what you have found in me.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

Now in that, I consider First Source to be the overall GOD of GODs, the eternal, One True GOD etc et al.

When I see folk expressing that GOD will be throwing individuals into hell for eternity and all that is as a commonalty attached to this belief, I find that offensive because it makes First Source out to be this monster, and this implication is what is offensive.

Also, I have the understanding that hells do exist and that people create them for themselves, and this has everything to do with the nature of the next reality phase...so making out that GOD is the one who will do this to individuals is a rather nasty fabrication to be dressing First Source up in and putting it out there onto other people whom you believe are evil and going to be marched into hell by the order of First Source.

My effort is to reveal to others what I have found in First Source, so whether I am called a 'cultist' or an 'evil person' bound for a hell GOD has created for me and those like me - which happen to include everyone who do not have those same 'honest beliefs' as you referred them - if any platform is provided in order for me to have the opportunity to do so, shouldn't that platform be a safe place for everyone involved, whether their opinion on what they personally feel is offensive or not is the opinion of everyone else involved or not?

All in all the bottom line for me is that I am not losing any sleep over it but simply taking the opportunity to inject a notion that can be intelligently and fairly considered.

[ttruscott]

insulting to inform people...
...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

Oh, you must be referring to the same way secular materialists constantly insult theists by suggesting, implying and outright accusing them of being stupid, uneducated, schizophrenic or bi polar to mention a few... supporting murder, cannibalism and slavery comes to mind.

Shall we keep a tally?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 4 by AdHoc]

Hi William,

Greetings AdHoc

I've often wondered why this would be offensive to anyone.

Yes, you are not alone in that. Others have asked the same question in the thread I started re this.

My answer is that it isn't about what we each find offensive, but what actually we all should realistically collectively agree to as offensive.
In relation to this message board, there are no specific regulations which do so.

However, from my perspective, of all the message boards I have given time and input to, this one shines as something of an anomaly due to what it so far has implemented which is helpful to respectful interaction plus other bonuses such as Members Notes.

In light of this, I think it is worth the risk (of being gagged or banned) to pursue the idea of open-endedness as apposed to dogmatism and in that I find it almost miraculous and certainly amazing that I haven't already been shown the door given my subject matter and particular religious views - what I call religious anyway..but incidentally what was - only hours ago on this message board - called 'Cultism' and my accuser not even bending let alone breaking any rules for that!

...unless of course it contravenes the 'be respectful to others' rule... Rules and lack consistency re the rules, can be confusing for that...

Which gets me to my point that if someone like myself not being 'Christian' or 'atheist' but still 'theist' has an issue with the rules because I am being held accountable on the one hand and allowed to be insulted on the other, because - simply put - the rules don't cover someone in my position so I am a target on account of that.

As as a target, I have to risk the possibility of being gagged or banned, so have to watch my step when broaching subject matter to table anything which I feel is pertinent and perhaps disadvantaging me due to my particular position in the scheme of things.

If I felt that no one on this board was interested in hearing such from me, I would not be taking the risk. But that is not the case.

I totally get it if I was in a heated argument and someone said that I'm "a sinner and going to burn in hell". It would be akin to splashing gasoline at my feet and flicking the ol' metaphorical fiery lung-dart.

Might as well get the fire going since hell is where one is bound, so sayth the fire-starters....

But if they honestly believe it to be true and aren't using it as an insult and said it in a less inflammatory way then why would that be any more offensive to me than if they were to say "if you don't believe in the FSM you will boil in the water pot for eternity".

I'd be like, "uh... ok"

I see conflation in this argument.

If someone honestly believes that all gays will be sent to hell by GOD because they are evil, and expressed that, what do the rules say regarding this? Would it be deemed offensive or not?

Preaching perhaps?

I think it would be deemed offensive by a lot of people. I think it depends on the person's motivation and approach. First of all I accept that in life people are going to offend me from time to time. sometimes inadvertently and sometimes on purpose.

Sometimes people come to my door to share their religion. They are polite and want to share their message but I know they think I'm going to hell or something. It doesn't offend me because of their approach.

Are those who believe in the FSM serious about their beliefs and in that would they seriously add to their dogma the belief that "if you don't believe in the FSM you will boil in the water pot for eternity"?

Is your particular argument that if one doesn't take any religion seriously one need not acknowledge the offences committed by those who do, simply because one doesn't take it seriously?

Yes exactly.

One of the requirements my theology follows is this;

[font=Comic Sans MS]I am revealed to you in hopes that you will reveal to others what you have found in me.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

Now in that, I consider First Source to be the overall GOD of GODs, the eternal, One True GOD etc et al.

When I see folk expressing that GOD will be throwing individuals into hell for eternity and all that is as a commonalty attached to this belief, I find that offensive because it makes First Source out to be this monster, and this implication is what is offensive.

Also, I have the understanding that hells do exist and that people create them for themselves, and this has everything to do with the nature of the next reality phase...so making out that GOD is the one who will do this to individuals is a rather nasty fabrication to be dressing First Source up in and putting it out there onto other people whom you believe are evil and going to be marched into hell by the order of First Source.

My effort is to reveal to others what I have found in First Source, so whether I am called a 'cultist' or an 'evil person' bound for a hell GOD has created for me and those like me - which happen to include everyone who do not have those same 'honest beliefs' as you referred them - if any platform is provided in order for me to have the opportunity to do so, shouldn't that platform be a safe place for everyone involved, whether their opinion on what they personally feel is offensive or not is the opinion of everyone else involved or not?

All in all the bottom line for me is that I am not losing any sleep over it but simply taking the opportunity to inject a notion that can be intelligently and fairly considered.

Thanks for explaining that. I think I understand better now and I think I've changed my opinion on this a bit.

Do you think it's more important to say what you think is true or not give offense?

Or are both things equally important?

Or maybe it changes depending on the subject?

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by ttruscott]

Oh, you must be referring to the same way secular materialists constantly insult theists by suggesting, implying and outright accusing them of being stupid, uneducated, schizophrenic or bi polar to mention a few... supporting murder, cannibalism and slavery comes to mind.

Shall we keep a tally?

If they are saying that of ones beliefs, it shouldn't be seen as a personal attack.

If it is aimed at the person, then sure.

If one's beliefs are essentially being used to attack individuals/groups of individuals, then this is unacceptable because it is personal attack.

One's beliefs are not who one is, so attacking beliefs (calling them evil or psychotic etc) should not be regarded as personal attack.

[otseng]

One's beliefs are not who one is, so attacking beliefs (calling them evil or psychotic etc) should not be regarded as personal attack.

I would frown on describing another belief as evil or psychotic. Why would it be necessary to state that except to vent and incite others?

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by AdHoc]

I think it would be deemed offensive by a lot of people. I think it depends on the person's motivation and approach. First of all I accept that in life people are going to offend me from time to time. sometimes inadvertently and sometimes on purpose.

Sometimes people come to my door to share their religion. They are polite and want to share their message but I know they think I'm going to hell or something. It doesn't offend me because of their approach.

Yeah I get that, but who are they to judge you, let alone judge you on your doorstep, even if they don't say it in so many words. Their beliefs say it.

A polite approach covers a multitude of sins eh?

Is your particular argument that if one doesn't take any religion seriously one need not acknowledge the offences committed by those who do, simply because one doesn't take it seriously?

Yes exactly.

Unfortunately history teaches us that keeping silent, remaining indifferent and even not taking something seriously can have very bad consequences. Isn't it better to challenge the beliefs anyway, even if one doesn't take them seriously?

Thanks for explaining that. I think I understand better now and I think I've changed my opinion on this a bit.

Thanks for saying so. See now that this is what we are all about in the sense that when individuals interact ripples happen, and if I remained silent then this conversation wouldn't have happened...

Do you think it's more important to say what you think is true or not give offense?

There is nothing personally offensive about what I understand re my theology and share on this forum.
When it comes to being offensive, should it be counted offensive to point out the offensive in an others belief?
One individual was so angry that I had called out the offence regarding their beliefs that he/she had this to say about it, even after being warned to moderate his/her expressions.

"I say and I say it again. Go to hell if your rules are not accordance with God RULES. If any atheists write something about my God they should get a warning. But they don't get a warning, why? Because the devil is the owner and the moderator teacher. They atheist blaspheme against God and everybody in the Bible, they don't get a warning."

~ Pipiripi [banned]


This is primarily a debating site, but people get confused as to what is debate/discussion and what is preaching/informing and the above is clearly preaching and clearly show someone who is offended because their beliefs have been questioned. This is a debating site and beliefs can be questioned and when they are tainted with evil, pointing it out should never be taken personally. We are not our beliefs.

Or are both things equally important?

When sharing ones beliefs - informing people - if those beliefs are aimed at the person/people and designed to be offensive, then this is unacceptable. We know this to be the case. We do not have beliefs that single out cultures or genders or any other social things and label them 'evil'. Sure there are evil people, but this is not because of culture gender sexual preferences etc...this is because they are expressing evil into the world and causing harm.

There is no doubt that certain theistic beliefs do attack individuals and groups based upon culture gender etc. It is not acceptable to called the majority of humans evil and
bound for hell simply because it just happens to be ones belief and one is simply 'informing' people that this is the case.

It has even been pointed out that some Christians do not believe GOD sends people to hell or even that hell exists! They believe it is an attack on the character of GOD and evil for that.

If people make claims to inform others that the others are evil and bound for hell, why is that not offensive, but calling these beliefs evil is offensive?

Or maybe it changes depending on the subject?

There are many things people find offensive about the Abranite religions which are quantifiable and called out for that. One might not survive the same in some parts of the world where radical Abramites think they do GOD a service by murdering those who dare to question and call out evil done in the name of GOD, but while that remains not so much the case in most countries where Christendom is the major organised religion, one should take advantage of that.

While there is disagreement within Christendom regarding the subject of hell and GOD putting people into that place for eternity - some Christians believe Jesus was speaking about annihilation of the soul not eternal damnation - such cannot be considered The Truth of the matter and be permitted to use public platforms to essentially besmirch the idea (name/character) of GOD - GOD as an overall idea rather than any particular religions idea of 'who and what GOD is'.

What right do Christians have to be able to call people 'evil' and complain when people call some of their own doctrines 'evil'? Where is the consistency in that? Double standards are not expression of truthfulness.

[Replying to post 9 by otseng]

I would frown on describing another belief as evil or psychotic. Why would it be necessary to state that except to vent and incite others?

In addition to what I wrote above otseng, pointing out these things should not be considered venting or inciting and each case can be considered on its own. In the case of using a debate site for informing people that GOD considers most everybody evil and is going to send them to hell for eternity, this is clearly not even something all Christians agree on and as such should not be regarded as something that is allowed to be said by those who do believe it. People should not be allowed to inform others. Some beliefs are indeed evil or psychotic and pretending they are not is not a great way to have open debate but can and does incite feelings of being disrespected and personally attacked and a target for such venting.

Does the signage "GOD hates Fags" displayed by the Westboro Baptist Church incite anger and feelings of being disrespected and attacked?
How is informing people GOD hates sinners and is going to send them all to suffer in hell for eternity" any different?

Lets face it, why is such belief considered NOT to be a form of venting and/or inciting?

Would it not be better to simply disallow it because it is disrespectful, adds nothing to reasonable actual debate and - especially when used to 'inform', is an attack on anothers integrity and well-meaning?

Is it really such an essential component to Christian doctrine that it should be allowed to continue?

Hey I am not saying discussion and debate about the subject of hell should not be permitted. On the contrary.
I am saying that flatly telling/informing people they are evil in the sight of GOD and that GOD is going to send them to hell to suffer for eternity is way overstepping the line and should not be permitted, even if one or two individuals happen to have that particular belief and think it their right to inform people of it.