There’s problems on both ends. That’s why a [devout, patient] Catholic moderator helping out would be very beneficial. Would you keep [happily] attending your son’s soccer games if both referees were opposing team fathers [and you didn’t always agree with their calls]? So now you even know the religion or devoutness of RMs? Meaning that a devout RM would never allow such posts as i just posted reproving the unScriptural accolades ascribed to Mary of Catholicism, in contrast to the holy Mary of Scripture?
In addition, you charge the RM with bias, yet this is due to RCS expecting special treatment, as they can and have denigrated Protestantism, and the nature of Protestants for YEARS without censure, of which i can PM you examples of, and even have gotten away with personal attacks (including falsely charging me with lying, etc.).
But what certain RCs seem to want is to be free to continue to advertize and promote their elitist church in "open" forums and not allow its pretentious claims to be attacked, as if they ran FR. Which is consistent with the historical attitude of their self-exalting church, which will be abased, and country to Scripture as well as the Founders of America overall.
But consistent with your desires, the Mormons could insist upon a "devout, patient" Mormon moderator who would forbid criticism of their religion, such as charges it with teaching contrary to the one and only true Judeo-Christian God as taught in KJV, with no books of fiction or additional editing.
To which censure i concur, but what do you think should be done with a poster who says such as that if you recommendations became forum rules?
There’s problems on both ends. That’s why a [devout, patient] Catholic moderator helping out would be very beneficial. Would you keep [happily] attending your son’s soccer games if both referees were opposing team fathers [and you didn’t always agree with their calls]?
The easiest way to avoid a problem with the RMs is to watch what you say. I had a post or two pulled way back when, and I tried to understand why, and modified my style to make sure it didn't happen again.
But as long as you're using the example of referees, I can also tell you I've watched NFL football games where one team was just way better at avoiding penalties. They actually practiced to avoid penalties, so they did. That should not go down as bias on the part of the referee. Blaming the ref exposes an assumption that both sides are equally disregarding of the rules, and objectively speaking that might not be true. One side might really be more disciplined.
Which is why when I see one of these personal fights developing, I try to steer clear of it. No one comes out of those with anything useful. I'd love it if someday we could self-moderate. I never use the abuse button when I experience a personal attack. I go into this assuming that attacks will happen, and I've already worked out, at least in theory, what I will do when it does. First, I make a judgment call. Is this an attack that does so much injury to the Gospel that I should respond? Or is it just an expression of frustration on their part that would be so obvious to the average reader that I really don't need to respond. In effect they've conceded my point because they stopped using real ammo and are resorting to spitwads. At that point, I am better of if I just walk away.
Second, if the attack is in violation of the rules, and it is against someone else, then I have an obligation to try and help that person defend themselves from unjust attack. It's been a while, so I'd have trouble remembering specific instances, but you mention respect for women, and in general I recall my "defense of others" responses to be in defense of the Evangelical women. I don't know if that's just a guy thing, or if they just get more of that than some of the others, but that's how I remember it.
The point is, if you're really trying to keep score on who does the most bad stuff to who (bad as defined by the RF rules, not your own subjective standard), I think that score keeping is going to be tainted by the specific experiences you have been through, and will not take into account all the experiences of all the other posters taken as a whole. That would be nigh unto impossible to do, which is why trying to keep that kind of score is a fool's errand.
And even if it could be done, it would be wrong to do because it doesn't comply with 1 Cor 13, the love chapter, which tells us that love doesn't even keep track of wrongs:
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
(1 Corinthians 13:5)
The phrase "thinketh no evil" is a poor translation. Turns out the terms used actually describe something like keeping a ledger of bad things. If we've got a ledger of wrongs done against us, we're living in violation of the second greatest commandment, that we love one another. So as members of the Religion Forum, which is predominantly Christian, one of the first and most important things we could do to self-moderate would be to simply love one another according to these and all the other principles of divine love, beginning with, "Thou shalt not keep score."
But that's hard, isn't it. I know. I've felt the sting of somebody having the nerve to spew nonsense back at what I thought was a good post. But somewhere I read, and it has always stuck with me, that that sting I'm feeling when that happens is just my old sinful pride. I am a fallible, sinful man. Jesus is perfect, and His "posts" were met with much harsher rejection than anything I've ever said. I have no basis for pride. When I feel that sting, I have to set it aside and try to keep on loving. It's sometimes very hard.
BTW, this is one reason why I don't use the abuse button in self defense. It serves as a check on my pride, which always lurks under the surface, ready to intrude on what otherwise might be good. Another check is time. Sometimes I've been stung and rushed to put together a sternly worded reply and then sat back and said to myself, nope, that's just you spewing your sewage. Nobody but God ever needs to hear you say something that useless. I'd rather even He not have to hear it. So sometimes the best thing to do is just get quiet and give it some time, think, set it before God, and come back at it later when I've got some perspective.
Anyway, I think we can do better. The rules reject personal attacks, but that should only be thought of as a starting point. Maybe instead of having FReepers opus out with a list of grievances, we could agree on a new set of rules that we enforce, gently, among our selves. Not sure exactly how that would work, but perhaps we could start with a thread that explores 1 Corinthians 13. Just a thought.
Peace,
SR