Started by ruggedeagle10 · · 👁 9 views · 67 replies
Christian Gomez2 said:I wouldn't say I was punished with a warning when I hadn't even written a couple of posts.
Let's set faith aside and ignore who belongs to what group.
Let's look at a simple comparison.
If someone starts a thread asking what river flows under the bridge in New York City.
And I write Hudson, that is an answer.
Then someone like rowdyhawk10 deletes my post and gives me a warning because it's off-topic.
The thread continues, but for those who write Hudson their posts are deleted.
I provided a direct answer to the topic and the question within it.🤷That is a fact, and whether the post was deleted maliciously or due to ignorance of the subject matter is not for me to judge.
rowdyhawk10 said:Thanks in advance for clarifying things and providing a concrete example—links included, naturally—along with that brief analysis and proof. That’s it, really; just a few sentences.
Anyone else could probably write the same thing, really. I'm not asking for some massive list of fifty different links, fifty examples, or fifty separate histories—I just need one single, specific, and obviously correct example. I'm more than willing to take everything into consideration.
If someone were to start a thread like this on the Religion board—asking a question like that—we’d probably just move the whole thing over to Geography or Travel. We'll find a place where it actually belongs.
If someone posts something like, "What are the principles of mercy in Buddhism?" under a thread specifically about a different topic, that question is off-topic. You shouldn't bother answering it—even if the moderators haven't had a chance to delete it yet—because by responding, you're just adding more off-topic content to the thread. Instead, just report it as off-topic by clicking the red triangle icon.
No, I simply pointed out that, based on the circumstances, I had my doubts about how sincere her apology actually was, which turned out to be the case in the end. Hello. With the right approach. In the past, there was an apology followed by a repeat of the same behavior, which only serves to make the apology feel hollow. 😉
What you mentioned under point one—that’s just plain offensive.
How would you feel if a moderator said something like that to a member? 🙄
feralpilot0 said:Since this thread is a complete mess—and there’s nowhere else to vent—rowdyhawk10, I suggest we just let this topic stay locked. There’s really no point in reviving discussions like this, especially given the toxic atmosphere in the Religion section and how quickly people jump to tear down anything that isn't "their" way. It’s clearly just a breeding ground for trolls and petty bickering.
Given that reality, it’s only natural that Christians will start digging in to defend the Bible—especially the real scholars—just as you would zealously defend Quranic Hadiths against malicious distortions...
I honestly think we're looking at a massive case of misunderstanding here...
Let’s try showing some good faith for once, shall we?
feralpilot0 said:First off, in my specific example, I linked my own stance and the thread regarding the worst biblical quotes—which you can see below—just to clarify why all that "offtopic" talk, trolling, and everything else mentioned in the justification for those two users' bans actually happened. The topic itself was highly controversial given its core purpose:
However, quite a few posts have been deleted now 😁, so linking back to them doesn't even make sense anymore; it's only useful to see how the discussion originally unfolded.
I've already said what I wanted to say about that, so I'm not in the mood to repeat myself. Basically, you still haven't explained why you were so triggered by an attempt to "expose" biblical evils, or why that interest resulted in so many bans—even against those simply trying to protect the Bible from being mocked or misunderstood...?
Especially considering the recent ban of Radeta with 500 points—honestly, it leaves some lingering doubt about how frequent these bans are and whether they're even justified.
If anyone has unresolved questions, disputes, or even conflicts, let's not settle them through posts or threats of bans. It creates a massive sense of instability here on Religion—who decides what's offtopic, what's trolling, etc.—while the users being moderated have zero tools to challenge a moderator, who is, of course, always in the privileged position.
Ultimately, you can either accept criticism or reject it, but everything said to you—at least from my side—is said with the best intentions for everyone's sake. The goal is to avoid rebellions, unnecessary dissatisfaction, and the subjectivity inherent in one's own judgment.
If someone feels wronged, they should feel free to speak up; they shouldn't have to retreat from the forum just because they don't like the atmosphere here.
Of course, all of this should be done with moderation, respect for the rules, and mutual consideration.
That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 🙂
Christian Torres3 said:You should check out rowdyhawk10's explanation to No Nick in the "Ban corner" subsection since it's directly related to this topic.
rowdyhawk10 said:feralpilot0,
I have already explained my stance regarding the unsightly "Worst Biblical Quotes" thread in several places:
* First, here.
* Then, regarding what Christian Torres3 mentioned, please look here; check my post (no. 2) specifically at points 1 and 3, which are relevant to your question.
* And finally, my complete post (no. 6) within that same thread.
* As for this specific comment of yours, I certainly appreciate your desire for more peace and tolerance, but I wonder how that would be perceived by a broader audience if we were to defend such topics? You and I might be believers, but not everyone is! What, then, would those who believe such topics shouldn't be restricted say? We simply cannot defend these subjects, because doing so would mean we’d have to ban every topic where any Holy Scripture, any religion, or any religious founder is criticized. We would end up closing or restricting so many threads that the scope of dialogue would become incredibly narrow, burdened by the feeling that this site had turned into a mosque or a church where those faiths can never be questioned. In such a setup, religions would only ever receive applause. 🤷 Atheists, agnostics, and anyone who opposes a particular religion for their own reasons would feel deprived of their freedom to express their philosophical or religious views. Furthermore, Muslims wouldn't be allowed to criticize anything Christian or from other faiths, nor could Christians speak negatively about Islam or anything else, nor would anyone be permitted to write about another's beliefs... The site would essentially turn into a "mess" where we just send each other pictures of beautiful mosques and lovely cathedrals, singing nice verses from the Bible/Quran to one another (but nothing ugly, under any circumstances!!! 😍). Therefore, the site guarantees freedom of expression for its members, which is our fundamental credo. The manner in which that freedom is exercised (or how it must not be abused) is governed by the rules of the Religion subforum. Anyone is welcome to object if they feel a rule is unjust. But for now, it stands, and it is the law of this site. 🤷
____
Regarding No Nick, Radeta, and the "ugliest biblical quotes" thread... let me add this. Radeta was being fair in that thread; most of the Biblical quotes, such as "it is a glorious thing to split the bellies of children", he attempted to explain in a decent manner. For instance, he provided an exceptionally sound justification—which I personally agree with—that these were times of war, that the threat of extinction loomed over the Jewish people, and that a state of combat readiness was, in some hands, absolutely necessary for the survival of a nation arriving in a new land. His only issue was when he drifted off-topic, such as when he started discussing Buddhism, which is considered off-topic. On the other hand, No Nick didn't attempt to defend a single part of it the way Radeta did; instead, he just kept dropping quotes along with his little interjections like, "Here is another ugly quote—fools mock"—effectively spamming the thread with the intent to derail it and prevent a healthy, dignified discussion of an extremely important epoch in human history: the exodus from Egypt and the arrival in the promised land (which would have justified much of the Bible).
To make it clearer for you, dear feralpilot0, imagine this scenario: Someone opens a thread titled "Ugliest Quranic Verses," and someone posts a verse like this:
2:191. And fight them wherever you find them and expel them from where they have expelled you. And fitnah [persecution] is worse than killing! And do not fight them at the Sacred Sanctuary, while they do not fight you. But if they fight you, then kill them!—let that be the penalty for the disbelievers.
It wouldn't be an issue if a Muslim were to explain the context of a verse—how it’s tied to a specific era or a crisis—the way Radeta correctly did above. But instead, imagine if that same Muslim posted on this thread: "Here is another ugly verse from the Quran: those who mock Islam are fools" (which is essentially what No Nick was doing mockingly). If they did that, that person would deserve the exact same treatment that No Nick and the rest of us received; I maintain that position firmly.
There seems to be an unwritten "rule"... whenever a topic becomes controversial, there are always a few people who refuse to engage in a civil conversation because they fear some terrible secret about their "Truth" might be uncovered... and in doing so, they act directly against their own faith. This isn't just true for Christians, but for many others as well. That's why we prevent these kinds of things regardless of the subject matter or which forum member is involved, because it's simply spam. No Nick was spamming the thread. We would be biased if we defended similar threads regarding Islam, atheism, or Buddhism while allowing those about Christianity to slide. That would be inhumane on our part, and I am sincerely sorry if anyone thought we were profiling people based on their beliefs... or tolerating one group while banning another. That would truly be unsightly, inhuman, and heavy-handed on our end. So far, Mostly, Nicole James, and I have never had doubts in that regard; even though our beliefs differ, we follow a concrete modus operandi when measuring situations and deciding on sanctions. For instance, whenever I make a decision, I think: what would Nicole James or Mostly say? I then weigh the presumed consensus alongside my own view... 😁 though we don't have time to consult everyone individually before every single ban. Generally, we have never intended to favor one group over another... yet that is precisely what we are being accused of here: that Nicole James is biased because she's part of the DIO association, or that I am biased because I am Muslim... but if anything is the truth (which I admitted openly to steelskipper5 earlier), our only bias has been toward Christians, out of respect for them as the majority, ensuring they don't feel marginalized (the other reasons are in the post I wrote to steelskipper5). He, for example, lost his cool and took it out on us because we are—and I emphasize some—lenient with Christians.
One thing is certain, feralpilot0: you can never please everyone in this world! If you ever become a moderator, you'll see how much people complain. There will always be dissatisfied voices, which is why we have this separate Religion PDF to ensure everything is discussed peacefully and every critique carries weight, provided it is argued and linked properly. None of the admins are blind to the concerns of those who care, but it all needs to unfold gradually and calmly. First, through clear arguments, rather than accusations of conspiracies or claims that the moderators hate a certain faith or its believers. We've seen people write about us here in an incredibly inhumane way, treating us like criminals or even degenerates...
That's all from me for now,
best regards,
rowdyhawk10
There seems to be an unwritten "rule"... whenever a topic becomes controversial, there are always a few people who refuse to have a civil conversation because they fear something terrifying might be revealed about their "Truth"... and in doing so, they act directly against their own faith.
This isn't something that only applies to Christians; it's true for many other groups as well. That is why we step in to prevent this kind of behavior, regardless of the specific topic at hand or which forum member is involved. At the end of the day, it's simply spam.
No Nick was spamming the thread.
We would be showing bias if we defended similar topics regarding Islam, atheism, or Buddhism... while playing favorites when it comes to Christianity.
That would be inhumane on our part, and I am truly sorry if anyone thought we were singling people out based on their beliefs... or tolerating things for some that we prohibit for others. That would indeed be something extremely ugly on our part—inhumane and aggressive...
Up to this point, Mostly, Nicole James, and I have never had disagreements in that regard, and even though our beliefs differ, we have followed a specific modus operandi when measuring certain situations and making decisions about sanctions. For instance, whenever I make a decision, I always ask: "What would Nicole James or Mostly say?" And then I make my decision by weighing the presumed collective stance against my own view...
Steven Clark2 said:I honestly wish he could have explained specifically what the issue was; even better, I wish I had been able to provide him with a proper rebuttal myself.
What is the point of someone receiving eight strikes based on a flimsy justification, without any real right to appeal, especially when the moderator himself cannot demonstrate that such a style of moderation is even standard practice?
No, rowdyhawk10, you missed the mark there because you were judging the situation based solely on your own interpretation. First of all, where exactly do you get the exclusive authority to interpret texts that I personally posted? 😕
Just for the sake of clarity, I chose which texts to include from the Story very carefully. My intention wasn't to mock anyone, despite what you've implied, but simply because those texts—if we want to look at it that way—can be viewed through a negative lens. They aren't inherently negative, but that is one way they can be perceived, much like how those supposedly "worst" biblical passages were viewed negatively, even though that isn't their essential nature.
In essence, the whole thread was trolling. It was set up around the Bible and Christianity, yet there was far too much mockery and far too little actual critique. This thread certainly was not intended to and will never serve the purpose outlined in the Rule on Religion.There seems to be an unwritten "rule"... whenever a topic becomes controversial, there are always a few people who refuse to have a civil conversation because they fear something terrifying might be revealed about their "Truth"... and in doing so, they act directly against their own faith.
An unwritten rule? Where exactly is this "unwritten rule" supposed to be? Furthermore, if someone is recognized as a person who has discussed absolutely everything on this forum—if I have tackled numerous sensitive topics and never once had an issue engaging in civilized, rational debate against the vulgarity, primitivism, cynicism, and sarcasm that I personally endured, as well as the attacks on faith, Religion, and Christianity in general—then I truly believe I can take pride in that. There is no such thing as a taboo subject. It is one thing to claim that someone is afraid of controversial topics or hesitant to uncover certain truths; it is an entirely different matter altogether. Do you truly believe that this type of discussion is merely a collection of criticisms or a symptom of being terrified of exposing famous truths? Honestly, it's a farce. Where is your proof?
You previously mentioned how the Pauline epistles were accepted under false authority, and you even claimed that Christianity itself is built upon fraudulent revelations. To address this, I have started a public thread with the following topic:
The Authorship of the Pauline Epistles
Where have you been hiding when it came time to tackle this sensitive subject? I’ve reached out to you publicly quite a few times—and I know you saw those calls—specifically regarding this matter. Why didn't you show up? This is an incredibly delicate topic, perhaps even too sensitive for most, yet you remained silent. Why wouldn't you step forward so we could discuss it? I was hoping you would join us to finally present those famous truths of yours.
This topic is even more sensitive than the last:
The New Testament Canon and the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD.
Where have you been hiding during this sensitive discussion? What exactly is it that scares you—or anyone else who dares to suggest that Constantine played a role in compiling the New Testament canon, or that the Church simply decided its contents on a whim? I just came across a few more comments like that on Reddit, just enough to keep this conversation going. If you’re truly as brave as you claim, why don't you head over there and tackle these controversial topics head-on? It seems like every crude remark about the Bible, Christianity, and Christ is met with support and encouragement here. Yet, if those exact same statements were made in any other cultural circle, they would be viewed as blatant provocations or seen as spreading religious intolerance. Is it a lack of understanding, a lack of culture, or is there something else at play? Why can't we just engage in a genuinely constructive debate about all of this? Regarding sensitive matters? It feels impossible, doesn't it? It seems as though the goal here isn't actually to reach a constructive solution through discussion, but rather to intentionally cast Christian values in the most negative light possible.
The debate surrounding the Council of Nicaea is essentially the Achilles' heel of all those who critique Christianity. It is the central nerve regarding Nicaea, Constantine, the formation of the canon, and so on—quite simply, it is the most heavily targeted subject out there. So, if you truly believe in your position, why not step up and join us for a public discussion? Don't just talk about it from the sidelines. Dealing with sensitive subjects. And then you turn around and accuse Christians of being unable to handle even the slightest bit of criticism, implying that this isn't even a fair discussion. RedditIt’s much better when you actually have decent threads where you can hold a real conversation. Regarding sensitive topics. You aren't even participating in this discussion. Please, contribute something meaningful to the topic. Let’s try to actually develop this conversation instead of letting everything devolve into primitive insults, vulgarity, and crude language that drags the quality of our discussion far below a decent standard.
The current atmosphere has quite simply driven many intellectuals away from this Reddit thread. It has pushed out the agnostics and atheists, it has alienated Muslims and Christians, and honestly, it has scared off just about everyone else you can imagine. One really has to ask themselves: is this happening because certain people simply refuse to engage in discussions about... Dealing with sensitive topics. Or perhaps it is simply because you find it impossible to engage in a constructive dialogue regarding sensitive topics without being interrupted by trolls—whose only goal is disruption—and without the intervention of moderators, who hold the exclusive authority to interpret all the sacred texts that frequently surface on this forum.
For that very reason, I’m asking you to answer me—especially since you yourself previously stated that any specific point must be weighed against its context. How can you claim that the texts posted by @PIP Boy 2000 are truly the worst passages in the Bible? Honestly, I am more than willing to engage in a public debate with you on this matter. I can demonstrate, based on your own logic regarding context, that these verses aren't nearly as "bad" as they are being portrayed here. Is this distinction actually important to you, or have you become so influenced by the dogmas of Islam—which holds such an intensely negative view toward the Bible—that you find it impossible to see anything else? Why are you hiding behind your moderator mantle instead of being the objective leader you claim to be? If we are going to have a productive conversation, why not clearly define what constitutes a "sensitive topic" so that we can actually discuss them properly?
I also find myself wondering whether there are certain taboo subjects within Islam, and if one is truly permitted to discuss them with the same level of scrutiny applied to Christian themes. Is Islam afforded some kind of special status? It seems as though there are "sacred cows" everywhere; we aren't allowed to question misogynistic passages in the Quran, address calls to warfare, debate whether Muhammad was illiterate, or even discuss the controversies surrounding his marriage and whether he could be considered a pedophile. Can we openly discuss if Islam is inherently more bellicose compared to other faiths, or is there simply an unspoken rule against it? Prohibited. Criticizing Islam, your prophet, or your holy book—is that allowed? I just want a straight answer to this question; I’d like it to be crystal clear for everyone here, not just for my own sake.
I am also prepared to demonstrate to you that every single one of the texts I have posted can be considered... Regarding negative commentary.. ☕ I know this because I was incredibly selective when choosing those texts. I did it specifically because I anticipated you would step forward as a champion of justice and an infallible interpreter of the Bible. However, if you truly consider yourself such an authoritative and unerring authority on the Bible, then perhaps you could actually make a meaningful contribution to this rather... Regarding a sensitive topic. I honestly can't remember which one I started this time—good grief, what have I done?
The Art of Biblical Interpretation, or Hermeneutics.
At the end of the day, you are being completely contradictory to yourself, and frankly, handing out bans without any actual basis. You’ve taken the texts I provided and interpreted them in an entirely different way than intended. The context is negative. It’s quite different from what I originally intended—so why exactly was I handed red cards for that? Negative commentary. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify? Are we really talking about texts that carry such a negative connotation? I was expecting some praise, yet all I received were warnings. Wasn't the whole point of this thread to present biblical texts in an even more pathetic light—based on our own subjective interpretations?This isn't something that only applies to Christians; it's true for many other groups as well. That is why we step in to prevent this kind of behavior, regardless of the specific topic at hand or which forum member is involved. At the end of the day, it's simply spam.
That sounds wonderful in theory, but the reality is quite different. On the Religion PDF, there is absolutely no such thing as equal treatment for everyone, despite how much you swear by an objectivity that you clearly lack. Once you actually start treating me as an equal, I will demonstrate exactly what I mean, clearly and without ambiguity. For now, you are simply weaponizing the rules against me, against Christians, and against anyone who doesn't align with your personal worldview—all while professing to be objective and impartial. If I were the only one seeing things this way, I would certainly feel a sense of guilt. However, this pattern has been noticed by agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and Christians alike. Your actual conduct on the Religion platform completely contradicts your claims. Here is just one more blatant example that gave me a good laugh yesterday.
The moderator is going to hand out a red card for this one, so I won't quote the entire thing here:
I must admit, I feel a bit awkward bringing this up again, but I truly believe we need to address the underlying tension here. It seems like some discussions are veering quite far from the intended path. While I value everyone's input, there's a fine line between vigorous debate and simply being disruptive. I sincerely hope we can maintain a level of decorum that respects the spirit of our community. Let's try to keep things constructive, shall we?
With an explanation:
Inappropriate language and comments about "getting intimate with others"... we have young kids joining this forum who are just hitting puberty. Please, take a moment to review the rules. Furthermore, any glorification of violence is strictly forbidden, as it runs contrary to the laws of the United States.
😂 This is truly laughable. First of all, for instance, you currently have this topic right here on the front page:
Religious sexuality.
It seems rather peculiar; it appears that young people aren't really frequenting this space, are they? 🙂 It seems like even on platforms like Reddit, things can spiral into pure perversion. 😂 What happened to that thread? The mystery of the bandana.Regarding that site where you have a few photos of undressed ladies—is that actually acceptable, or is it not? I’m honestly just asking because I want to be clear on the boundaries. On a similar note, I’ve been wondering about the sheer volume of posts regarding sexual violence in the Bible; they seem to dominate almost every single discussion within the Religion section. Are those kinds of posts permitted here, even if we consider them from a purely cultural perspective?No Nick was spamming the thread.
That is not true. ☕ You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. I consider myself an honest and sincere individual, so I feel no need to justify my actions to you, but quite simply, you are mistaken. My only intention was to demonstrate how even beautifully written Biblical texts can be twisted to provide a completely negative context. The point I was trying to make was this: our own subjective judgment shouldn't be the sole metric for determining what is right or wrong. I am glad I managed to illustrate that, even if it cost me eight strikes—it seems clear you've launched a holy war against me, wielding rules that aren't applied equally to everyone, rules you don't even follow yourself, and which you have violated countless times.We would be showing bias if we defended similar topics regarding Islam, atheism, or Buddhism... while playing favorites when it comes to Christianity.
Fine, does that mean I can start threads regarding the topics I mentioned earlier that pertain to Islam? Will someone receive 500 points for those kinds of topics, or perhaps a smaller penalty, a ban, or something of that nature?That would be inhumane on our part, and I am truly sorry if anyone thought we were singling people out based on their beliefs... or tolerating things for some that we prohibit for others. That would indeed be something extremely ugly on our part—inhumane and aggressive...
It pains me that I cannot trust you, for several reasons. I could put my faith in Nicole James or Mostly, but I can no longer extend that trust to you. You have singled people out based on their convictions because you were bold enough to label Christian beliefs and values as meaningless or false—is that really how a moderator behaves? I told you before that you have contradicted yourself through both your posts and your moderation style.Up to this point, Mostly, Nicole James, and I have never had disagreements in that regard, and even though our beliefs differ, we have followed a specific modus operandi when measuring certain situations and making decisions about sanctions. For instance, whenever I make a decision, I always ask: "What would Nicole James or Mostly say?" And then I make my decision by weighing the presumed collective stance against my own view...
It is peculiar that I have received the most strikes from you, yet I am not the only one (Nicole James only received two, and no one else received any). It is also strange how even Nicole James didn't agree with a few of the strikes you handed me; I asked him via private message and that was his response. However, I didn't press the issue regarding my own strikes until I was hit with a staggering eight strikes on a single thread that only had 79 posts, followed by your latest message explaining why you are closing it. It is odd because even some admins have told me that I received strikes for certain posts without justification, but once again, I never pushed the matter further.
The fact that someone, whether it was steelskipper5 or whoever, complained that you all are too lenient toward certain Christians or that you should hand out more strikes—that same critique could easily be leveled at how you treat atheists and others; it’s just a much larger conversation. Once that Religion PDF actually becomes what its title suggests, perhaps things will change. Until then, the primary roles are played by personal judgment and perceptions, rooted in the worldviews of you moderators rather than what is truly fair and just.