When the beliefs being talked about are our own and other’s personal beliefs, a sharp dividing line isn’t there in every way. And, it would be possible to try to legislate every imaginable scenario here and make a rule for it, but it would making posting near impossible.
The rules here make sense, for a forum that doesn’t adopt one particular Christian denomination’s viewpoint.
Open threads: Any beliefs can be criticized, but the criticism should be kept to discussing those beliefs. Comments that merely attack others are prohibited.
People of all beliefs do take jabs at each other while discussing the issues here, but if they are actually discussing the issues, and the jab isn’t particularly egregious (or if no one chooses to report it), the jab does remain. Often, it’s dealt with, though, by the person jabbed bringing it up to the person who made the remark.
Yes, this is one broad category of tension between "since the moderator will not determine truth, don't expect..." and "do not make it personal."
Although this tension has been mentioned before and should be pretty obvious, I'll mention it again to acknowledge it: general statements which someone finds defamatory will be taken "personally." I mean both (1) the sense that the personal application logically follows and (2) the sense that someone will interpret it as a personal insult and then respond with the holiest insults possible.
If anyone needs help understanding (1), here's an example syllogism:
- "Anyone who isn't affiliated with the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 is a heretic." [As guidelines stand, this statement is probably allowed here.]
- "You aren't affiliated with the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879."
- "Therefore, you are a heretic." [As guidelines stand, this statement is probably "making it personal."]
And then we see (2) in all its Christlike glory.
Yes. I find the pattern interesting, at least because both jabs and their responses reveal character, and then one's character (or lack thereof) will affect how people view one's beliefs, one's scriptures, and one's God.
My tagline quotes the Religion Moderator profile for a reason: "When he is being rude or mean it drives people _away_ from his confession and _towards_ yours."
If I had the room, I would've also quoted the caveat that follows: "That is of course if you can resist the urge to meet fire with fire, in which case neither confession is appealing to the lurkers."
(I notice complaints similar to "the problem with the Religion Forum is all the fault of you on the other side!" But I've also noticed that neutral-party complaints about the Religion Forum tend to be general, not directed against a particular confession.)
The profile continues, "The poster who 'turns the other cheek' wins every single time." I don't know if the wording was designed to hint at this, but with some justification I can recast this as "The poster who follows Jesus's teaching wins every single time." Now, I am not thereby saying that every poster must follow Jesus's teaching, but I could pick worse examples to follow (and such examples abound). Maybe God wants to see more winners. At least I do.