CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Religion moderators - atheists

Religion moderators - atheists

Started by Roger Barrett2 · · 👁 6 views · 22 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Roger Barrett2hollowtrucker77Jeremy Young19Jose Barrettdustypuma5Peter Stewart6rowdyhawk10Nicole James
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#1 ·
Prompted by a warning I received simply because a moderator doesn't grasp Christian moral doctrine and then having my subsequent explanations ignored over on Reddit , I want to pose two questions:

1. Why is the current moderation team for the Religion sub consists of two atheists (Ego and Twitter) and Veronica, whom I suspect holds some kind of religious belief (though I'm not entirely sure which one)? This isn't an appeal for their removal or a direct critique of them personally; I'm just genuinely curious about the reasoning. Is it that believers generally shy away from these roles, or is there a belief that non-believers (atheists?) can sanction religious users more objectively?

2. What happens when people who moderate the Religion section—people who aren't actually part of any religious group themselves—make a mistake (as Twitter did in my case) because they aren't as deeply versed in the subject matter they're reading, yet they aren't willing to admit it? In other words, we have "judges" who know less about the topic than the "religious practitioners," yet they hold the power to decide what is right and what is wrong. Wouldn't it be more logical to have moderators drawn from those actual religious institutions so they can properly judge and moderate the Religion sub?

Which is the better approach: having impartial judges (outsiders) who lack deep knowledge, thereby increasing the margin for error, or having insiders who possess a better understanding but might carry more bias?

I'd love to hear your thoughts!
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#2 ·
Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#3 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

The issue isn't that I got a card but that my card and ban haven't been lifted even after I explained my position on Reddit. It’s perfectly clear from Romans 1 that when Paul lists sins, he includes homosexuality along with disobeying parents, greed, and so on. From that perspective, every sin listed there is harmful to society and represents unnatural behavior. This isn't about criminalizing one thing or another—and honestly, I'm surprised no one has even commented on that.

My position isn't an insult or an attempt to stir up trouble; it's simply presenting a viewpoint in accordance with Christian doctrine.

That’s why I asked whether it’s better to have insiders or outsiders serving as mods.
Jeremy Young19 Jeremy Young19 Member
10 messages
joined Mar 2010
#4 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

How can a moderator claim to be objective if they lack the fundamental understanding or context of the very content they are supposed to be overseeing?
Jose Barrett Jose Barrett Member
48 messages
joined Jun 2009
#5 ·
I’m all for having one Christian moderator and one Muslim moderator assigned to the Religion subforum.
They represent the two largest groups on that board.

An atheist just can't be truly objective in every single situation when it comes to faith, mostly because they lack the necessary background knowledge.

It would be the same if I tried to moderate the Natural Sciences section; I have zero business doing that since my expertise is in sociology.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#6 ·
Jeremy Young19 said:How can a moderator claim to be objective if they lack the fundamental understanding or context of the very content they are supposed to be overseeing?

And who actually said moderators don't understand what they're moderating?
The whole point of being a moderator isn't to dictate how people should think or tell everyone what their opinions ought to be; it's simply about stepping in when posts cross the line and become inappropriate.
Just because someone thinks they have a free pass to spout whatever nonsense pops into their head and throw insults around—only to hide behind some "God told me this is okay" excuse—doesn't mean anything; honestly, that's just bad math on the part of whoever thought that logic would hold up.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#7 ·
Jose Barrett said:I’m all for having one Christian moderator and one Muslim moderator assigned to the Religion subforum.
They represent the two largest groups on that board.

An atheist just can't be truly objective in every single situation when it comes to faith, mostly because they lack the necessary background knowledge.

It would be the same if I tried to moderate the Natural Sciences section; I have zero business doing that since my expertise is in sociology.

And how exactly is that supposed to work??
Who gets to moderate whom, and who is barred from moderating who...?

For instance, if some Muslim guy posts that all women are nothing but loose cannibals just because they wear short skirts and sleeveless tops, is a Muslim moderator just going to stand behind him and claim that's a valid opinion??
Or if a Christian writes that Muslims are basically outlaws because they follow some outlaw doctrine...
Who on earth handles that kind of moderation?
Is the Muslim mod supposed to call the admins for a jihad, or should the Christian mod just nod along and say, "Yeah, that's right"?
And so on, and so forth...
dustypuma5 dustypuma5 Active Member
111 messages
joined Apr 2013
#8 ·
I mean, this forum gets pretty boring sometimes anyway. Watching a holy war would actually be interesting for once. 😬
Look, no offense to anyone, but this is an American forum, in a country where most people (at least on paper) are Catholic.
The religion section should probably reflect that reality.
Muslims can post, sure, but the growing number of Muslims on here are acting like they’re on some jihadist board—praising Turkey, talking about Iranian supermen, justifying violence, and basically calling for it. They talk about suicide bombings like it's just "self-defense" against American imperialism, and if you point out that even the Czechs were under Russian rule for 50 years without causing chaos, there’s just no comeback.
I'm not saying we should ban Muslims from posting, but I don't think promoting jihadist methods should be allowed. In this part of the US where we live, things like wearing burkas, harassing women, or blowing up buses full of people... that's just not civilized here.
If someone wants to push those kinds of ideas, Reddit definitely shouldn't be the place for it. Democracy isn't just letting everyone do whatever the hell they want. That's just chaos, not democracy.

Note: After I post this, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, just watch. 🙂
Jeremy Young19 Jeremy Young19 Member
10 messages
joined Mar 2010
#9 ·
hollowtrucker77 The user states:
And they say moderators don't actually grasp the nuances of what they're overseeing.

I won't name names here, but I'll tell you this: most of these moderators don't even grasp the basic tenets of religious doctrine, let alone understand the nuances of religion itself.


A moderator’s role isn't to act as a thought police or dictate exactly how people should frame their perspectives; rather, it is to step in when content crosses the line into being genuinely inappropriate.
The notion that one can simply spout whatever nonsense crosses their mind—hurling insults and baseless claims only to retreat behind the shield of "God told me so"—is nothing more than the flawed logic of someone who is fundamentally bad at mental math.

A moderator really ought to possess a fundamental grasp of the subject matter they are overseeing if they intend to distinguish actual discourse from mere mindless rambling. When I find myself wading through endless theological disputes regarding Islam, I am often left completely lost; I have no clue what the core arguments even are, let alone how to tell whether a user is engaging in genuine debate or simply shouting nonsense to provoke a reaction.

When it comes to insults, people generally spot them when they're laid bare, but if someone manages to mask an affront behind a veneer of trivialities, it goes completely unnoticed—mostly because people simply lack the perception to see through the act.

When you look at the discussions regarding atheism over on the Religion subreddit, it becomes quite apparent that atheists lack any sort of centralized organization to bring them under one cohesive roof, much like the way a church functions. Because there is no unifying body, the understanding of atheism is almost entirely left to the discretion of the individual. Consequently, having an "atheist moderator" in that space feels somewhat redundant; such a person can really only speak for themselves and offer their own specific perspective on how things should be handled.
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#10 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

Please don't take this as an attack on the Twitter mod. I just don't think Roger Barrett2 is the only one to blame here.
Who else thinks Twitter messed up here? It’s pretty obvious that... She just didn't spiritually grasp what Roger Barrett2 was getting at.
So, they ended up sanctioning his post. If you ask me, that was the wrong call. That's just how I see it.

And what's the answer to what the moderators are actually doing? They're moderating.
They moderate the subforum and keep it in decent shape. It’s just one of those things—entries that don't actually serve anyone, especially those people who like to act all pious and pretend they're deeply spiritual or full of faith.
To spot someone who’s just looking to stir the pot and start an argument. You don't actually have to belong to any officially recognized religion.

It’s good to see them actually moderating. 😁
Just look at the posts under that "Pretense" thread. If you really want to see where this is going, just read the opening post and see what kind of direction they're trying to take things.
rowdyhawk10 started this thread. Even after ignoring the initial bait and trying to explain exactly what he was asking in a decent way, he just kept doubling down on the malice. It was constant. Another user actually called him out on it, too.
No, he just keeps going. It’s low. Every time you try to answer him, he just hits back with a barrage of insults. He just won't stop.
False accusations and malicious claims... like people saying I was the one calling for "all minarets to be banned across Europe." 😲 And honestly, that has nothing to do with the truth, nor does it have anything to do with my posts on that thread about Switzerland or the "Pretense" topic.
What is the point of these ugly religious provocations right here, especially when it’s not even the topic at hand? Who is actually starting these arguments in the first place, and what's the motive? I was reading something pretty similar yesterday over on Reddit. 🙄
Instead of stepping in right at the start and calling out the provocation for what it was... they just let him keep going.
He’s just trolling, trying to push me until I finally snap and give him the response he deserves. The post that got deleted wasn't even vulgar. And it wasn't just me who felt that way. I mean, you might let hollowtrucker77 slide, but do you honestly think this is healthy communication? Especially coming from someone who claims to know Christianity better than most actual Christians? You really need to read through this whole thread—it isn't even that long—to see how much underlying malice is actually in those posts.
It’s all just a pretense to show interest in Catholic sacraments.

It was pretty obvious right from the very first post, so I'm just going to skip over that part. Honestly, I'm looking for something decent here—something with actual arguments and substance.
They want communication, but they don't actually want to listen. Instead, they just make up these conspiracy theories about revenge or hate and whatever else.
🙄

rowdyhawk10 said:There’s really no need to get hysterical here. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn't throw accusations my way without any actual proof. This is an open forum, so there's no reason to start making up new rules on the fly. I was simply asking a sincere question about whether we were talking about actual blood, and you responded by saying it was indeed real blood. Look, I was just trying to be polite and ask if you actually drink it. That’s all. I only asked because, from what I understand, the host is placed in the mouth. But honestly, I have no clue if you’re supposed to swallow it or just hold it in your mouth and spit it out later. I've never done it myself—being Muslim, as you guys know—so I genuinely didn't know if it was swallowed or not. That’s why I asked. Look, if my questions bother you, then feel free to just ignore them. I’m not trying to throw accusations around or be insulting.

What a loaded question. Honestly, he just doesn't know. 🤦 Does he honestly think I'm naive enough to buy into his supposed "good intentions"? 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:Alright, thanks; you made that pretty clear. So, basically, you guys... to... you guys drinking? 🙂

It's his. I guess I'm just starting here. Not sure if I have much to say yet, but I'll try.I mean, for me... Sacred. I believe other Catholics feel the same way.

rowdyhawk10 said:People can ask pretty much anything about the Islamic faith on this forum. That’s what this place is for, after all. But since you're claiming you aren't actually interested in learning, it tells me you didn't come here to contribute to any meaningful interfaith dialogue. You just showed up to bash "your own" side while hypocritically hiding behind the very concept of dialogue that you're actually undermining. Your sudden sense of outrage is honestly hard to wrap my head around. It’s especially jarring considering you were just saying on here not that long ago that we should push for bans on mosques all across Europe, extending far beyond Switzerland. You even used that incredibly sarcastic little phrase about "cultivating" them. If your memory is failing you, feel free to go back and read your own posts in that thread about the mosque bans in Switzerland. Honestly, that level of irony tells me everything I need to know. It feels like this "precious blood" you keep talking about doesn't actually mean much to you, because otherwise, you wouldn't be using that kind of sarcasm during a time when so many Muslims—including some of our own people right here on this forum—were feeling genuinely insulted by those bans in Switzerland.

What should I make of this? 🙄

hollowtrucker77 said:A moderator’s job is to stay objective. They shouldn't be taking sides or trying to "understand" one person over another.

That’s how it should work, right? But is it really? I've lost count of how many times I've realized that isn't the case. It shouldn't be about people constantly stepping in to protect one another. Instead, it should just be about actually understanding what people are trying to say in their posts. And honestly, you need a certain level of spirituality to truly understand. To understand the spirit.
Write it down, and if that's what you want, then everything else follows from there. Besides, some people take the scenic route through the woods while others stick to the highway—that's just how things go, I guess. That’s just my two cents.
So, yesterday on the Reddit appeals thread—where I’m supposed to have exactly one follow-up after a moderator responds—my reply got wiped. It wasn't spam, and I wasn't being aggressive or anything. Looking around, I see plenty of other users replying multiple times after a moderator reaches out without their posts being deleted. To me, this feels like being silenced. If a moderator gets blunt and starts calling people out in their own...
If they refuse to give a response and won't even let you post one short reply—which is something you should absolutely be entitled to—then I can only see that as an attempt to silence me.
What kind of communication is that, anyway? I didn't exactly write a novel in my formal complaint.
Same old story today. rowdyhawk10 is still at it, throwing around provocations and accusing me of having some obvious hatred toward him. He’s trying to twist everything into this weird personal vendetta centered on the Book. And sure, I got slapped with a 35-point penalty for supposedly trolling and making it personal. Fine. But when I filed my card complaint regarding the Book, they just told me I was spamming and ended up deleting my response to the moderator.

It all kicked off with his opening post in the "Pretense" thread. After rambling about a Skype call he had with a Christian friend—where he was trying to talk him out of believing in sacraments—he decided to ask the Christians on this forum to weigh in. But once the Catholic users
started providing actual arguments, citing Canon Law and official doctrine, I witnessed exactly what happens
on threads like this. People start hating on him, attacking him, and trying to discredit him. Suddenly, Muslims are being portrayed as under threat, I’m labeled a troll, and apparently, I’m just here to stir up drama and hellfire while calling for the mods. Honestly, what would happen if I went over to an Islam thread and did exactly what he’s doing to the Christianity threads? Like this quote right here? 🤦

rowdyhawk10 said:Can we Christians answer this, but in a way that helps him realize this isn't actually a Pretense, and then, once the discussion develops a bit, I can send my acquaintance a link to this thread so he can see your points and hopefully change his mind? I don't know how else to steer him away from his mistakes. It would really help me out, so please, jump in.

My part in bold. Does that quote even need more commentary? 👎

Sorry for the long post, but this isn't a personal vendetta against rowdyhawk10—I don't even know him,
it's more of a confrontation with posts that lack good intentions, despite the user ultimately claiming to care
about interfaith cooperation, tolerance, and non-violence. To me, those kinds of posts feel like spiritual and psychological aggression, and
it's vital that moderators recognize that immediately and step in. We shouldn't wait until it turns into
all-out war on a thread, only for someone to come charging in like a cowboy and start throwing red cards everywhere.

We have to distinguish between God's law and spirituality, logic and reason, and basic humanity and
tolerance. And then there's just... "philosophizing" about emptiness.
If that PDF is really called Religion, it should probably be renamed to "Self-Appointed Debaters Bickering Without Scruples."
They're just trying to steamroll everyone without a second thought.

I'm posting this here because the thread is open and I didn't want to start a whole new one. I have nothing against atheists,
I just can't stand posts that lack decency and tolerance. I actually enjoy reading things like the Article of Faith; I find them respectful, objective, and unbiased.
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#11 ·
Jeremy Young19 said:
hollowtrucker77 The user states:
And they say moderators don't actually grasp the nuances of what they're overseeing.

I won't name names here, but I'll tell you this: most of these moderators don't even grasp the basic tenets of religious doctrine, let alone understand the nuances of religion itself.


A moderator’s role isn't to act as a thought police or dictate exactly how people should frame their perspectives; rather, it is to step in when content crosses the line into being genuinely inappropriate.
The notion that one can simply spout whatever nonsense crosses their mind—hurling insults and baseless claims only to retreat behind the shield of "God told me so"—is nothing more than the flawed logic of someone who is fundamentally bad at mental math.

A moderator really ought to possess a fundamental grasp of the subject matter they are overseeing if they intend to distinguish actual discourse from mere mindless rambling. When I find myself wading through endless theological disputes regarding Islam, I am often left completely lost; I have no clue what the core arguments even are, let alone how to tell whether a user is engaging in genuine debate or simply shouting nonsense to provoke a reaction.

When it comes to insults, people generally spot them when they're laid bare, but if someone manages to mask an affront behind a veneer of trivialities, it goes completely unnoticed—mostly because people simply lack the perception to see through the act.

When you look at the discussions regarding atheism over on the Religion subreddit, it becomes quite apparent that atheists lack any sort of centralized organization to bring them under one cohesive roof, much like the way a church functions. Because there is no unifying body, the understanding of atheism is almost entirely left to the discretion of the individual. Consequently, having an "atheist moderator" in that space feels somewhat redundant; such a person can really only speak for themselves and offer their own specific perspective on how things should be handled.

Exactly. 👍 That’s with the added caveat that you end up labeling someone a troll, a religious fanatic, some kind of sacramental
pastoralist, spiritual police, a hater, someone prone to arguing, or just someone looking for a personal vendetta—basically pushing them right to the edge of an incident by using labels against the uneducated or certain "notorious names." And all of this is done in such a polite, civilized way. 🙂

So, I guess that would fit the description of a masked insult. There's more to it, but those are the "examples" I could think of.
I've forgotten the rest, and honestly, I really don't want to go "studying" old posts to find them. 😁
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#12 ·
So, I guess?
Which part of this is actually difficult to wrap your head around??
Back in the day, before we moved away from animal sacrifices, people would drink the blood and eat the meat of the creature being offered up (which, let's hope, was just an animal)
The whole idea was that through the act of sacrifice, that flesh and blood became sanctified, bringing a divine blessing to whoever consumed it
🙂
Jesus essentially abolished that practice by shifting the entire concept to a spiritual level through wine and the host—acting as a ritual to receive blessings through consecration, which we now refer to as his body and blood

And now, just because someone decided to ask a question, what are we supposed to do??
Ban rowdyhawk10? Outlaw Islam on the forum? Ban everything except Christianity??...

Or, we could try something else that actually seems useful: we could clean up the religion subreddits by removing anyone who isn't capable of civilized communication, regardless of what denomination they follow, and leave actual space for people who are genuinely interested in interfaith dialogue and actually want to learn something from "the other side"
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#13 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Jeremy Young19 said:How can a moderator claim to be objective if they lack the fundamental understanding or context of the very content they are supposed to be overseeing?

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#14 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:So, I guess?
Which part of this is actually difficult to wrap your head around??
Back in the day, before we moved away from animal sacrifices, people would drink the blood and eat the meat of the creature being offered up (which, let's hope, was just an animal)
The whole idea was that through the act of sacrifice, that flesh and blood became sanctified, bringing a divine blessing to whoever consumed it
🙂
Jesus essentially abolished that practice by shifting the entire concept to a spiritual level through wine and the host—acting as a ritual to receive blessings through consecration, which we now refer to as his body and blood

And now, just because someone decided to ask a question, what are we supposed to do??
Ban rowdyhawk10? Outlaw Islam on the forum? Ban everything except Christianity??...

Or, we could try something else that actually seems useful: we could clean up the religion subreddits by removing anyone who isn't capable of civilized communication, regardless of what denomination they follow, and leave actual space for people who are genuinely interested in interfaith dialogue and actually want to learn something from "the other side"

Zg sash
I would just ask, quite sincerely... why is this lady allowed to call me out in ten different threads, morally discredit me, accuse me of some sort of undercover agenda, and literally call me a coward? Why is she permitted to impose her worldview on others as if it were untouchable? She has done this in SEVERAL threads. Wherever she can. She did it in my thread about conversion. She did it in the book protest against religion. And now she is doing it here. Why is she being tolerated? 🙄

Please look at her last post. First, she mentions Roger Barrett2. Fine, she has every right to do that, but she’s simply abusing it. She wrote maybe one paragraph about Epignosic (at most 10% of her post), and then suddenly, without any logic or intellectual justification, shifts the focus to attacking me personally (at least 90% of her post). You saw everything she wrote. For instance, she claims I am base—that I write in a low manner—and talks about my inherent lack of character. And those aren't even all the insults she threw at me. Why is she being tolerated? Especially since this entire post she scribbled in this thread isn't even on topic (meaning, what she is writing and insinuating has nothing to do with the question of why atheists are moderators on the religion thread).
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#15 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕

Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#16 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕

So, what is the actual point of a forum titled Religion - Institutional Belief?
If Christian or Muslim viewpoints can't be expressed here—if they belong in the mainstream media, at theological conferences, or in public squares, but not on this Forum—then what exactly are we doing here?
Jeremy Young19 Jeremy Young19 Member
10 messages
joined Mar 2010
#17 ·
ZgSash;26959137 said:and?
which part is difficult to explain??
well, prior to the ritual sacrifice to God, blood was spilled and the meat of the sacrificed creature was consumed (one hopes it was merely an animal)
it was believed that through the act of sacrifice, that flesh and blood became sanctified, bestowing a blessing upon whoever consumed it.
🙂

There you have it. In the Jewish tradition, even though they practiced blood sacrifices, consuming blood was strictly forbidden; the blood was shed within the Temple because life resides in the blood and it belongs solely to God. There were also instances where the sacrifice was entirely burned, meaning no one could partake of the meat at all. It is certainly useful to understand the context of what is being moderated. Yet, we still encounter individuals who label Jews or Christians as vampires, and when someone reacts to those provocations—bam, they get slapped with a "vampire" ban. Red flags everywhere.

Alternatively, we could pursue a more productive path: we could purge this religion PDF of everyone incapable of civilized communication, regardless of their specific denomination, thereby preserving space for those truly interested in interfaith dialogue and who possess a genuine desire to learn from "the other side."

👍
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#18 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.

Forgive me, but the way you present a Bible verse and then attempt to justify it feels a bit like an evasion. Personally, I am against homosexuality, just as you read on that page, and I agree that it is contrary to nature. However, if I were to quote the Quran, I suppose I would also deserve a warning. I hope you see the distinction. We don't live in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to express views that contravene the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which bind America as well, even if such views appeared a thousand times in the Bible or the honorable Quran. We all agreed to abide by those rules when we registered for this forum.🙂

Roger Barrett2 said:Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.

Okay, if I did that, I apologize, and I truly am sorry... I will go back and check your posts. It is possible I mistook you for another individual who is also a priest. If that is the case, I will apologize to you—not just once, but a thousand times if necessary.
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#19 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:Forgive me, but the way you present a Bible verse and then attempt to justify it feels a bit like an evasion. Personally, I am against homosexuality, just as you read on that page, and I agree that it is contrary to nature. However, if I were to quote the Quran, I suppose I would also deserve a warning. I hope you see the distinction. We don't live in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to express views that contravene the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which bind America as well, even if such views appeared a thousand times in the Bible or the honorable Quran. We all agreed to abide by those rules when we registered for this forum.🙂

Okay, if I did that, I apologize, and I truly am sorry... I will go back and check your posts. It is possible I mistook you for another individual who is also a priest. If that is the case, I will apologize to you—not just once, but a thousand times if necessary.

The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate any laws in America—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal laws were to shift, the Church isn't going to suddenly change its tune just to stay current. They’ll keep preaching against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in all its forms. At the end of the day, their moral compass isn't dictated by whatever happens to be trending in the legal system.

rowdyhawk10 As I was saying:


Look, if I messed up, then I’m sorry—I truly am. I’ll go back through your posts right now to set things straight. It’s entirely possible I mixed you up with another priest I was talking to earlier. If that’s the case, please accept my apologies. I’m more than willing to say sorry a thousand times over if that's what it takes to make it right.

Hey, don't sweat it—mistakes happen to the best of us!
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#20 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:So, what is the actual point of a forum titled Religion - Institutional Belief?
If Christian or Muslim viewpoints can't be expressed here—if they belong in the mainstream media, at theological conferences, or in public squares, but not on this Forum—then what exactly are we doing here?

The core issue here is that believers should have the freedom to say whatever they want, provided they don't infringe upon the rights of others. I believe I made this clear in my previous response: we aren't living in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to advocate for anything that violates the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which the U.S. is bound to follow—regardless of whether such views are found in the Bible, the Quran, or any other scripture or canon. It’s just basic principle, much like Roman law dictates: one person's rights end where another person's begin. 🙂

Epignosis Asks:
The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate the laws of the United States—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal law were to change, I suppose the Church would simply continue to hold its ground, speaking out against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in general.

Look, I don't think there's an issue with discussing what's considered unnatural, provided you back it up with arguments from the natural world. I actually made a similar point myself—stating that it was contrary to nature—but I didn't get flagged for it because I was being respectful toward gay people and their personal freedoms. I just wasn't making comparisons at that level based on the Bible.

Roger Barrett2 said:The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate any laws in America—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal laws were to shift, the Church isn't going to suddenly change its tune just to stay current. They’ll keep preaching against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in all its forms. At the end of the day, their moral compass isn't dictated by whatever happens to be trending in the legal system.

rowdyhawk10 As I was saying:


Look, if I messed up, then I’m sorry—I truly am. I’ll go back through your posts right now to set things straight. It’s entirely possible I mixed you up with another priest I was talking to earlier. If that’s the case, please accept my apologies. I’m more than willing to say sorry a thousand times over if that's what it takes to make it right.

Hey, don't sweat it—mistakes happen to the best of us!

I appreciate you accepting my apology. 🙂 Greetings.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads