1. This thread has been active since July 2010, and the assumption was that we were talking about "cleaning up" those last few pages where things had started heading in an undesirable direction.
2. Please save that tone and attitude for someone else or somewhere else. I asked because I actually wanted an answer, so it would be great if you could respond without the patronizing vibe and all those imperative sentences ending in exclamation points.
The stated reason for locking this thread was trolling and the subsequent need to clean up the discussion.
Does failing to moderate those trolls—essentially allowing useless chatter to persist—mean that everyone else, both innocent and guilty alike, will be denied the chance to participate just because of a few bad actors?
Thank you for your attention and for providing some clarity.
Matthew Fox4 said:Spirituality isn't really about the skill itself, you know? It’s more about the person behind the craft. I honestly feel like there isn't a single talent out there that we can't either totally cheapen through "selling out" or actually elevate through true spirituality. It's kind of like how being a priest doesn't automatically make someone a spiritual person—it's just a job title if the heart isn't in it. Same goes for astrology; just because someone practices it doesn't mean they're tapping into anything deep or finding their soul through the stars. It all comes down to the individual, I guess.
gifts of the Spirit: prophecy, healing, wisdom, knowledge, and so on
and fruits of the Spirit:
love joy peace patience generosity kindness goodness, gentleness, and self-control etc
are two entirely different categories.
Therefore, gifts can be genuine spiritual gifts, or they can be counterfeit, mere imitations.
Whether something is authentic or a fake depends on whether the person wielding the gift also possesses the fruits of the Spirit.
dustyranger64 said:Just like someone who doesn't vote can still be a political mod, or someone who isn't an occultist can moderate the alternative subforum.
A person's religious affiliation—or lack thereof—doesn't dictate their ability to moderate a specific topic. What actually matters is their genuine interest in the subject, their expertise, and their capacity to respect diverse perspectives through objective analysis. In fact, being non-religious could actually be seen as an advantage for a moderator in this context.
It does matter sometimes. Specifically, if you're dealing with someone holding radical or fanatic views, or strong anti-theist convictions, then it definitely plays a role.
Furthermore, mods in the religion section (or any subforum, really) can absolutely abuse their authority. We saw this firsthand not too long ago when a former religion mod was removed specifically for that reason—using their position to enforce biased and subjective moderation. So, what you're saying might hold true in an ideal world.
That said, over the last five or six years, there hasn't been a single Catholic mod. (I mean, a practicing Roman Catholic who actually respects the Church, right?) Why is that, considering the vast majority of topics center on Christianity and most users there are Catholic?
Given all that, the question in the title is valid...
dustyranger64 said:It’s difficult to give a single, definitive answer without looking at the specific PDF or the context of the thread itself. Sometimes an actual source is genuinely hard to track down, even for the person who originally cited it. For instance, someone might mention a book, but that doesn't necessarily mean much to you in that exact moment. Basic internet etiquette suggests providing sources whenever possible. However, we can't really apply strict rules to every single word posted on a forum. Ultimately, it should be up to the moderator of a specific thread to judge based on the vibe of the discussion, the tone of the post, and the author's intent.
But that isn't the case here. These are excerpts from the New Testament, so it's incredibly easy to cross-reference them with a standard translation. The problem is that multiple times, people claim they are quoting the New Testament when they aren't actually quoting anything at all—they are using fabricated quotes and presenting them as "ultimate proof" or central arguments for their points.
Under which forum rules is this kind of behavior allowed?
Setting aside things like honesty, integrity, or fair play—those old-fashioned, boring "gentlemanly" qualities (which clearly don't apply here)—how is this NOT a violation of the rules? Why is it being treated as acceptable or unpunishable??
Gregory Turner71 said:I'll say it again: I haven't come across a single quote that isn't already present in an official translation of the Bible, so I'm really not sure what we're even debating here.
Does that mean you were watching it, or just comparing it to the original? Enough. Has every single quote he’s posted in the years since he started writing about these topics been like this?
That's a fictional quote; you won't find anything like it in the UN.
"Truly, truly, I say to you: I am the gate for the sheep. All those who came before me were nothing more than thieves and robbers."
This is inaccurate—it's an incomplete and unfinished sentence.
Either you're on my side, or you're against me. Matthew 12:30
Anyone who isn't standing with me is effectively working against me; if you aren't helping us gather, you're just helping to scatter what we've built.
It's the exact same thing here—they quote a fragment of a sentence and conveniently leave out everything that actually gives it meaning.
Jesus turns to Peter and says, "Get behind me, Satan!"
This is purely fictional; such a thing doesn't even exist in the UN.
Don't you see? Everything you put in your mouth just ends up in your gut and then right down the toilet.
etc
And that only applies to that specific section of that one post.
If this all came from you, then thank you; I think we can leave it at that. I could list ten more examples or a hundred to back up my point, but it wouldn't change a thing. The issue isn't how many times someone twists Bible verses—it’s about the fact that the user above is doing it intentionally and repeatedly for the exact reason mentioned in the thread title (check the link above if you want to see the context and who this concerns).
So, you’re actually defending and justifying a textbook case of repetitive trolling? You're essentially letting someone derail a high-quality, trending discussion on a subforum that you're supposed to be moderating. Fantastic!
You didn't even write this; you just copied it from some atheist website, which is exactly what you've been doing here for years—constantly pushing these half-baked or twisted quotes. It’s always the same old polemic, isn't it? Every single time the word Bible comes up, you show up like some self-appointed scholar trying to "enlighten" everyone with your distorted snippets from the Old and New Testaments. LOL.
Besides, I already pointed out exactly where the issue lies and which part of the quoted text was incomplete and inaccurate. Even though we're talking about only one or two verses, you didn't even provide the full context as it appears in the original text.
And honestly, I have no interest in getting into an argument with you. If anything, I'm interested in hearing the administration's stance on this issue and their explanation for why this kind of behavior is permitted.
Gregory Turner71 said:So, they aren't actually forged, just taken out of context? Are you seriously expecting moderators to act as the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes the correct context for Bible verses?
So, you haven't even bothered to look at the reported posts or the last two pages of this thread?
Here is an example of one of several posts.
Either you're on my side, or you're against me. Matthew 12:30 Your father is the devil. Absolute nonsense! How can you claim to speak with such righteousness when your hearts are so malicious? Let them go! They are blind, the leaders of the blind! Don't you see? Everything that goes into your mouth just ends up in your stomach and then straight down the toilet. Get away from me, you villains! (28) There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with all the prophets, inside the Kingdom of God while you find yourselves cast out on the outside. Hypocrites. Isaiah spoke nothing but the truth about you: "O faithless and wicked people! How long must I be with you? How much longer must I bear with you!" Oh, you scholars and hypocrites! What a bunch of phonies! Woe to you! Blind leaders! Peter pulled him aside and began to protest: "God forbid, Lord! No, this should never happen to you!" Jesus turned toward Peter and said, "Get away from me, Satan!" Matthew 16:23 "Truly, truly, I tell you: I am the gate for the sheep. All those who came before me were nothing more than thieves and robbers." Fools and the blind! You resemble nothing more than freshly painted graves. From the outside, you look beautiful, yet inside you are filled with nothing but skeletal remains and filth. You are essentially testifying against yourselves, proving that you are nothing more than the sons of prophets' murderers. Hypocrites! You travel far and wide, crossing land and sea, just to win over a single follower. Snakes! A nest of vipers! How will you ever escape hellish condemnation?
It begins with the Gospel. Matthew 12:30 Returning to... Matthew 28 Where is that quote from? The one he ripped out of context so it makes zero sense on its own—it just circles right back to... Matthew 16:23 Which specific part of the quote was incomplete or poorly framed? He just keeps going, throwing out a jumbled mess of verses below that aren't even properly cited, have zero connection to one another, and certainly aren't accurate or complete passages from the Gospel.
Should I really expect anyone engaging in a debate to provide exact citations when their entire argument relies on them?
Should one expect it or not? And I’m not even talking about context or someone's specific interpretation—I mean plain, old-fashioned forgery. 🙂
Just as dustyranger64 mentioned, the rule regarding misquoting refers strictly to quotes from fellow forum members.
It seems to me we've established that this applies even more heavily to subforums like Politics and History. Basically, posts containing distorted quotes are either deleted or flagged by default, or the mods will demand an accurate, relevant source. On the Politics board, I know it's standard practice to require a direct link or the original quote if someone is using it as a primary argument in a debate.
^^^I’ve included a link to the thread so you can see everyone else's comments regarding the controversial posts (especially on the last couple of pages). The posts where people are quoting incomplete, out-of-context snippets from the Bible have already been reported, so everything is crystal clear. What more do we need? Should I send a formal petition to Vatican City?
Jose White18 said:What kind of reaction do you get when reporting posts like those?
Based on my past experience—which was quite extensive—there’s nothing. As for this specific case, remains to be seen.
Timothy Robinson2 said:On specific subforums, there’s no reaction at all. In fact, someone might even get a warning for trolling if they present a fake, since apparently, personal translations of the Bible and other texts are considered just as relevant as scholarly ones.
It goes beyond that; some people even get accused or penalized for "psychoanalyzing" their interlocutors.
To be honest, I'm not sure if that "psychoanalysis" rule is currently active on Spirituality as well as it is on the other one.
That’s just a general forum observation. For anything regarding spirituality, you should probably wait for Nicole James.
While the example is specific, I’m more interested in the general forum rules . Therefore, any potential canned response from the moderator (or even them just locking the thread immediately) wouldn't actually resolve the dilemma presented in the original post... at least not in my opinion.
^^^ As I understand it, this also applies to misquoting excerpts from, say, a news article or some other work used to spark a thread or drive a discussion here—specifically regarding the Politics section, where media reports often serve as the catalyst for debate.
If a PDF like Spirituality or Religion is a space where people discuss snippets from the Bible, various New Age books, the Talmud, or the Quran, wouldn't it be better to provide the actual original text rather than an incomplete or falsified quote? Especially when you can sense there might be an underlying motive. If someone does this repeatedly, we could argue it isn't just a simple mistake or lack of knowledge, but something more intentional.
Even if we set aside the potential motives of a troll, the question remains: why is it permitted to use a misquoted verse from the Bible—which was the specific issue at hand—as evidence in a debate?
(I am not talking about a personal interpretation of the verse, but the actual quote itself being stripped of context or altered.)
I have a question that I am genuinely curious about:
On serious discussion forums designed to foster high-quality debate (and attract a certain "caliber" of clientele, I suppose), posting quotes that don't match the original—or any kind of suspicious, inaccurate citations—usually results in an immediate deletion, removal, or ban without much fanfare. Or, if the opening post contains such errors, the entire thread is shut down or wiped.
So why isn't that the case on subforums dedicated to specialized topics like Religion or, in this instance, Spirituality?
Why is it permitted on those specific boards to blatantly misrepresent, for example, the Bible? Most often, we see quotes stripped of their context until the actual message and meaning are completely lost, or even outright fake quotes being used. do they just allow this??
Here is what I mean: Topic
This becomes even more egregious when someone isn't doing it by accident or out of ignorance once or twice, but rather does it consciously and consistently—meaning, with intent.
What then? Should we permit or even encourage this behavior simply because falsifying sources (whether it's a news article, the Bible, or anything else) is someone's "civil right," "moral duty," lol, or whatever else they claim??
p.s. If a discussion involves Catholic matters, the standard source should be the official Catholic Bible—not, say, the writings of a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. So, the excuse that there are various editions of different texts doesn't hold water, because it is quite easy to specify what constitutes the original and relevant source for Catholics, for Mormons, or for Buddhists.
That idea seems pretty foolish to me... especially since you can just report PM spam or harassment, so there's already a way to handle this without resorting to any dictatorial or extreme measures. lol
Ryan Thomas4 said:If we look at this from a technical perspective rather than a legal one, someone.something(at)gmail.com isn't an email address.
If I recall correctly, that was how the notice was phrased over at the FBI.
I suppose I should clarify: what specific phrasing is actually prohibited on this forum? For instance, would it be considered acceptable to say my gtalk handle is someone.something@gmail.com? Or would that count as sharing an email address? What about someoneDOTsomethingATgmailDOTcom? Is that technically an email address, making it forbidden? Or if I were to say someone.something via Google? Or perhaps mention that my nickname is identical to my Yahoo email? Would all of those instances be deleted or flagged as private information?
shadowpilot8 said:I disagree. I would say the average user is smart enough not to leave their email address—in any format—on a public platform. At least on my PDF. Those who post their email only to have it deleted usually get the point immediately. I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Is it just getting too heated?
Given that she posted hers (or whoever's it was, I'm not sure) ten times already, as a former moderator, she should know the rule well enough. Let's assume she does.
So what is the actual purpose of insisting on posting it an eleventh time??😁 geez!🙏
We shouldn't overlook the fact that the user who triggered this whole discussion had her email address right there in her signature. Which has since been removed. And deleted.
But how can you be certain that it was actually her email, or why she chose to include it in her signature, or any other reason for it?
(Among other things) that is precisely what these regulation laws are attempting to prevent—protecting against identity thieves and individuals who are either deeply disturbed or purely malicious. In the "cyber world," such people certainly exist.
Nor does the fact that they received a sheet serving as notice and instructions for moderators mean they will actually follow them. Most likely, they will, but there are always those 2% or 3% of weirdos who can cause far more damage than the remaining 97 or 98% who are perfectly fine and here for the right reasons.
feralpilot6 said:Some of us use a single email address for everything (like me), and obviously, I used that same one to sign up for this forum. Naturally, my full legal name is attached to it. And of course, any of you creeps can see it. So when a moderator reaches out via PM and addresses me as an actual person using my real name, what’s the deal? Who is actually protecting my privacy then? 🤷 There is a massive difference between voluntarily posting a photo or an email address and the other, shady stuff you guys have agreed to. If I decide to post pictures of my tits on this forum, that's my choice. Right?
Keep in mind, this forum gives you the option to change the email address you used during registration at any time after you've signed up. 😉
Kate Foster12 said:Look, don't mention it. Are you planning on actually stopping this harassment now? ☕
I asked A and MM for the link and requested that they send it via private message rather than posting it here—something I’m certain they would respect—but as for who you actually are, I haven't the slightest clue.
Why on earth did you post that link here after I specifically asked you not to?🙄☕