Also, posters on a Religion Forum should be aware that when they falsely accuse another Freeper of telling a lie (or bearing false witness) then they are guilty of the exact same thing.
But RF posters should not be surprised when other posters tell them that if they don’t believe exactly the same way they do, then they’re doomed to hell. When one belief spawns from another, both typically condemn the other, i.e. apostate, anathema, cult, heretic, Satanic, etc.
It’s rough in the town square and that's why thin-skinned posters should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to caucus, ecumenical, prayer or devotional threads.
Still accusing another poster individually of a sin is inflammatory. Telling another poster he is bearing a false witness may not sound so bad, but what if you had said “you are an adulterer?”
Religion Forum posters probably are much more sensitive to accusations of sin or moral failures. The accusation itself understandably can incite a flame war or cause resentment.
My thinking now is that accusing any Religion Forum poster individually of breaking any of the “ten commandments” or of hating God or other people should be considered “making it personal.”
That prohibition would not apply to deities, religious figures, religious authorities, authors or groups of believers. For instance, it would not be making it personal to say “Muslims are adulterers” or “Protestants bear false witness” or “Catholics worship idols”.
Mull this over and let me know what you think. I won't make a change until I get some feedback.
WORKS FOR ME.
Sounds like Holy Spirit’s wisdom.
I’m touched by Holy Spirit’s anointing in your life and ministry hereon
yet again.
I do have still a slight to moderate reservation . . . not sure how to put it and I think it’s probably inconsequential.
I suspect you probably answered it when you said to post Scripture and ignore it otherwise.
It just feels like it would be good to have a kosher short response to outrageously untrue assertions.
Maybe Mutley or some other fitting gif would work.
I respect the suggestion about responding with Scripture but plenty of Scriptures could be construed as in violation of the Rel Forum rules, too! LOL.
Maybe I’m making too much of such relentless outrageously, brazenly untrue posts.
Your proposed stance/rules adjustment sounds pretty workable, I think. Shoot. We should try it for 90 days and see.
MAY HE BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ABUNDANTLY.
Sounds good to me.
I could live with not ever again being called a *hater* just because I disagreed with some point of doctrine. Disagreeing with doctrinal issues does NOT by default make someone a *hater*. I wouldn’t even have a problem with applying that to groups of people even though you don’t consider that a personal attack, as it is nothing but inflammatory.
This is like trying to teach someone how to drive. You have the general rules of the road and there are always new situations encountered that require an application of those rules in new ways that you just can’t predict.
The problem for you is, there is no conceivable way to make up specific guidelines for every conceivable situation that may come up. And when you do, someone, somewhere will find a way to finesse the rules and they’ll retort with, *You didn’t say we couldn’t say ______*. Then we’ll be back to square one with you trying to figure out, yet again, how to moderate the RF and satisfy everyone.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the complaints is to determine whether there is a valid issue, or whether someone is just trying to control the discussion and shut the other person down, and then either amend the rules, yet again, or invite them to leave the thread if they are being that easily offended.
This is worse than trying to mediate a dispute between my kids. You don’t get paid enough.
You didn’t ask me directly, but..
FWIW, I think the rules are fine as they are. There are more inflammatory posts possible within the rules and less inflammatory ones possible that violate the rules. Outlawing “bearing false witness” is ok, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Effectiveness of the rules comes down to moderator judgement, and the current rules plus the catch-all tools of warnings, time-outs, banning, nuking the thread are sufficient when wisely used.
At my age, I'd take it as a compliment.
;-)
The difference is that while we all know what Catholics believe or do not believe in (or believe we know), it is not true for individual religions of one. So if ask why Mennonites worship XYZ, according to your rules that’s ok, yet if we ask person, say “Young Archie” about what he believes in, that’s making it personal, according to your rules. hence the disconnect.
I'm thinking there has to be a form of rebuttal...All to often some of us are accused of saying things in posts that were never said...
Outside of FR, I may say, with love, mind you, 'you are a lowdown snake in the grass, stinkin' skunk of a liar'...But I realize on FR we have to tone it down...
I'm not big on the 'bearing false witness' phrase because it could make the person saying it sound as tho he/she was holier than thou...
I'm hoping we can still defend ourselves with: that's not accurate; you're making this up; that's a false statement, etc...
Thanks a bunch for trying to be as fair as possible...
I think that the proposed modifications are a bad idea.
I would write a long post explaining why, but my sense is that it would be a waste of time. I have no sense that you're really paying attention.
I don't know why you resist reason, but those are your actions.
Your new rules will make the posting climate here worse. They exacerbate the anti-Catholic bias in the rules.
They shelter even more bad behavior by reducing further the "cost" for such behavior.
But the rules are already pretty bad, and this doesn't make them all that much worse.
sitetest
It seems that those posters who most approve of these proposed new rules have responded by making it very personal in their replies to those who do not approve of these changes. That alone concerns me.
It takes some time and effort to abide by the excellent rule of the Religion Forum that stipulates we can discuss and criticize a faith, practice or belief, but not an individual FReeper. In a nutshell, that is a golden rule for this forum and for life in general. Following it even has made my life outside this forum easier. Arguments with husband and kids don't get out of hand. The argument remains focused on the "what" and not the "who."
In fact, the rule itself is quite Christian. Knowing we're all fallen, we speak against the sin, and not the sinner who we still hope will be turned toward the truth.
Being called a "liar" is as much a personal assault as any other pejorative. It's not difficult to abide by the rules and instead respond with "that statement is not accurate." As you have repeatedly said, it also goes to motive, and no one can know another's motive for certain.
We shouldn't expect the preaching of the Gospel to go unchallenged. But it needn't be uncivil.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." -- Isaiah 40:8
This is an excellent post RM
The other day someone used my name and basically said I was a liar.. I am used to hard hitting debate so it rolls off my back ..but some posters can not let things go... so your rule sounds fair
I’m reasonably confident you are aware . . .
that
in terms of “inflammatory” there are a dozen to 2 dozen—certainly 10 or more
rabid clique sorts who will tirelessly and relentlessly do everything they can until Jesus comes
to get everything Dr E and I post labeled “inflammatory” and bannable—regardless of the facts.
Given your level of anointing and wisdom, that has rarely concerned me.
I just hope they don’t grind you down.