If one reads the RM's guidelines on what is or is not a personal attack one would understand the difference.
But as the RM notes regarding open forums:
Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.
It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.
Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
With almost twenty years of FReeping under my belt I don't need advice from you. How is it "tearing down ones beliefs" to continually harangue other posters about what they DO NOT believe, particularly after the matter has been clarified ad nauseum.
Furthermore, engaging in criticism of things like "The Real Presence" is perfectly fine, but accusing one who believes that doctrine of being a "cannibal" IS a personal attack regardless of what rule it's cloaked under.
One more thing.
How is it anything but hypocrisy to advise posters to the religion forum to be “thick-skinned” when this forum has THE MOST restrictive rules of any forum on FR?
The necessity for such contradictory advise is nothing but a smokescreen for differential enforcement.