Falsifying original quotes to disqualify them: spiritual/PDF implications

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.

The rule about faking quotes mostly boils down to people misrepresenting what other users say here.

If someone starts twisting outside sources—you know, books, articles, or news sites—it’s really up to the community to step in and explain things clearly. If it keeps happening, the moderators of the local PDF should step in to figure out if this person is actually being malicious (which is basically just trolling) or if they're just totally misinterpreting the material.
My advice? Just reach out to the local mods directly to handle it.

That's just my general take on how forums work. For anything specific regarding spirituality, you'll have to wait for Nicole James.

^^^ 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.)

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.

Susan Price30 said:Why don't we apply the same rules to subforums dedicated to specific topics, like Religion or, in this case, Spirituality?

What kind of feedback do you usually get when reporting posts like that?

On specific subforums, you won't find anything like that. Actually, you might even get banned for trolling if you point out a forgery, since apparently, someone's personal translation of the Bible or other texts is considered just as valid as a scholar's work.

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.

dustyranger64 said:The rule against misquoting primarily concerns falsifying what other forum members have said.

If someone misquotes external sources—like books, articles, or news sites—it’s really up to the community to step in and explain the discrepancy through reasoned argument... and if it becomes a recurring issue, the moderators of the local PDF should decide whether it's blatant trolling or just a simple case of bad interpretation.
In those instances, I’d suggest reaching out directly to the local mods.

That’s just my general take on forum etiquette. For anything specific regarding spirituality, you'll have to wait for Nicole James...

But what about those cases where someone claims to have read something from a specific author or source, yet when others ask for verification because they can't find it themselves, the claimant insists on their own version with a justification like "I don't feel like looking it up, but I know it's there"? Of course, you can't force anyone to hunt down sources if they aren't willing, but doesn't basic decency dictate that they should at least stay quiet and exit the debate? Is insisting on such a low level of discourse also considered trolling?
And a second question—a variation on the theme, actually, though perhaps a bit more blunt—does responding with "look it up yourself" when asked for a source count as trolling? Again, while you can't compel someone to provide a citation, surely they could simply remain silent instead...

I'm not sure how other "serious" (to borrow Susan Price30's term) PDFs handle this, but I am certain that one particular group wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior. On the History PDF, the moderators work incredibly hard to keep discussions within reasonable bounds, and the users tend to follow that lead...

I need more info on the PDF and the overall topic before I can give you a solid, useful answer.
Sometimes finding a specific source is a total nightmare, even for the person who actually cited it! For example, someone might mention a book, but to you, it’s just a random title in the moment.
Basic internet etiquette says you should always cite your sources if you can.
But let's be real—not every single comment on a forum needs to follow strict academic rules.
It’s really up to the moderator of the specific PDF to judge the vibe of the thread, the tone of the posts, and what the author was actually going for.

It doesn't necessarily have to be such a broad generalization. For instance, if we're talking about a textbook approved by the Department of Education, or literature that you can easily find in any local Barnes & Noble, claiming there's hidden content inside without providing a shred of evidence—and stubbornly doubling down on it—could actually be grounds for a lawsuit... If Pauletić is right, we might just see some furious textbook authors filing demands to have certain topics scrubbed entirely.

It’s certainly easier to play in the gray areas when dealing with obscure, hard-to-find sources. I fear there isn't much recourse there, though I suppose there are rare instances where action can still be taken.

Susan Price30 said:I have a question that I am genuinely curious about:

On serious subforums where the actual goal is to encourage high-quality discussion—and presumably attract a high-quality "clientele," I guess—inserting quotes that don't match the original text, or any quotes that are suspicious or inaccurate in any way, usually results in them being deleted, moved, or the user getting a warning immediately without much fuss. Or, if the opening post contains such errors, the entire thread is shut down or wiped clean.

So why doesn't the same standard apply to the subforums focused on specialized, specific topics—like Religion or, in this particular case, Spirituality?

Why is it allowed on those specific boards to blatantly misrepresent, for instance, the Bible—which is what we are mostly talking about here—by pulling quotes out of context until the message and meaning are completely lost, or even worse, just posting outright fake quotes???

Here is my point:
Topic

This is especially egregious when someone isn't doing it by accident or out of simple ignorance—maybe once or twice—but rather does it consciously and consistently; in other words, with intent.

What should the response be then? Are we supposed to permit or even encourage this kind of behavior just because misquoting a source—whether it's a news article, the Bible, or anything else—is considered someone's "civil right," a "moral duty," or whatever else they might claim? lol.

P.S. If a discussion is centered on a Catholic issue, the original source should be a standard Catholic Bible—not, say, writings from a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. So, the possible excuse that "different editions exist" doesn't really hold water, because it is actually quite easy to specify what constitutes the original and relevant source for Catholics, for Mormons, or for Buddhists.

As dustyranger64 points out, issuing a warning for misquoting only applies to quotes attributed to forum members.

Altering quotes from external sources can be penalized, but it isn't mandatory—it depends entirely on the situation. Since you haven't provided a specific quote, I can't offer any more insight than that.

^^^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?

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.

Susan Price30 said:^^^ I’ve included a link to the thread so everyone can see the comments—including those from others—regarding the controversial posts (especially on the last and second-to-last pages). Any instances where incomplete or out-of-context excerpts from the Bible are being cited have already been reported, so everything is perfectly clear. What more is there to do? Should we send a formal petition to Vatican City?

So, you're saying they aren't outright fabrications, just taken out of context? Honestly, do you really expect the moderators to act as the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes "correct" biblical context?

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. 🙂

Susan Price30 said:So you didn't even bother looking at the reported posts or the last two pages of this thread?

I don't get why everyone's tripping.
Someone on the spirituality board asked me to pull some ugly stuff from the New Testament, because apparently, "that kind of thing isn't in there."

So, among other things, I tossed in some random quotes from Jesus, showing how he doesn't exactly hold back when dealing with people who disagree with him—he just lays into them. It's not even about the context (context for what?) regarding why he was yelling or cursing them out; it's just about the sheer amount of shouting and cursing itself.
Bottom line: it's definitely there, and there's plenty of it.
I can't think of any modern spiritual leader who rants and curses that much, unless you count those fanatic Taliban types or certain hardline Protestant preachers.

Every quote is straight from the HBK Bible, so it's obviously not some kind of forgery. Obviously.

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.

Susan Price30 said:—not at all—you just copied this from some atheist website, which is basically what you've been doing for years now—mostly just posting these half-baked or distorted quotes, always using the same old talking points, these little pamphlets... for years, whenever the word Bible comes up, here you are, acting like some scholar trying to enlighten everyone with your crooked citations from the Old and New Testaments. LOL.

Besides, I already explained above exactly where the issue lies and which part of the quoted text was incomplete or inaccurate—even though we’re only talking about one or two verses, you didn't even provide them in their entirety or show how they actually read in the original.

And honestly, I have no interest in getting into an argument with you; if anything, I'm interested in hearing the administration's stance regarding this issue and an explanation as to why such things are permitted.

So, let me say it again. I haven't seen a single quote yet that can't be found in an official translation of the Bible, so I really don't know what we're even discussing here.

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!

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??