Modding conflict of interest.

NinjaBart

Sorry if this isthe wrong place to post this but I'm just curious about when moderators may have conflicts of interest.

There is a fairly interesting thread on Christianity discussing homosexuality and the interpretation of its taboo in the Bible.

A poster came along with a slightly abstract view on how she practices her spirituality and the mod split her contribution from the thread.

This is fair enough. However, he linked the new thread with the words "Crazy Talk" and used the same term for the title of the new thread.

Shouldn't the mod of a religious board be the last person to sully someone elses beliefs purely because they personally disagree with them. I'm sure if anyone called his beliefs "crazy talk" they would be banned.

It was pointed out to him by three people, yet he hasn't edited any of it out.
Whats the point of having a mod who won't let anyone else express their beliefs without being branded crazy?

Moriarty

I say we should burn those christians at the stake.

I mean, what have they ever done for us?

azezil

I'm with NinjaBart, those damn christans have been repressing my religion for far too long, as the founder and venerated leader of the Church of the Eternal Azezilites I DEMAND justice!



*throws a soggy cabbage at christianity*

Winters

All hail The Church of the Eternal Azezilites

/me gets down and prays

Hagar

/me Passes around the collection plate, no coppers or yiz will rot in Hell

seamus

Azezil posts once, and the entire thread goes off topic. That's some power. Perhaps his church has merit.

GuanYin

I saw the thread, Justhalf was well well out of order.

Having edited the comments of others, dleeted some of their posts and split the thread, he's not edited his own post where teh offence took place even though he acknowledged his wrong-doing.

The Corinthian

I would entirely agree with Syke here.

The justification for the removal of the offending post appears to have been:

Propose a different interpretation of Christianity is off-topic in a thread asking is homosexuality a sin. Plain and simple.

Of course, last time I checked Christianity was not a unified belief system, so it is quite viable that the topic would be interpreted differently depending upon the branch of Christianity one followed. So it would have seemed perfectly on-topic to me.

Apparently according to the moderator, however, this interpretation was in some way unacceptable and so he decided to split the thread. To add insult onto injury he then went on to brand the new thread with is own opinion, that it was nothing more than “crazy talk”.

I would as a result of this incident question the objectivity of the moderator of that board. Just because they consider an interpretation to be heresy is not a just reason to censor it.

JustHalf

NinjaBart wrote:

Sorry if this isthe wrong place to post this but I'm just curious about when moderators may have conflicts of interest.

There is a fairly interesting thread on Christianity discussing homosexuality and the interpretation of its taboo in the Bible.

A poster came along with a slightly abstract view on how she practices her spirituality and the mod split her contribution from the thread.

This is fair enough. However, he linked the new thread with the words "Crazy Talk" and used the same term for the title of the new thread.

I made a joke, which was in hindsight poor judgment.

JustHalf wrote:

I couldn't think of a title for the new thread. I made a joke. Instead of changing the title of the thread (which, bear in mind, the thread title TOLD HIM TO) he blanked his first post and deleted all of his others.

Now I feel like the star of a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.

This is obviously off-topic. Take it to feedback if you want, but don't discuss it in this thread.

JustHalf wrote:

Your response was off-topic. It was proposing a radically different interpretation of Christianity, one that isn't actually Christian. It's vaguely unitarian.

Propose a different interpretation of Christianity is off-topic in a thread asking is homosexuality a sin. Plain and simple.

The name of the thread was a joke. Almost certainly, it was in bad taste; a mistake. I'm sorry for that. But the thread split was well needed.

I think this clarifies this.

NinjaBart wrote:

Shouldn't the mod of a religious board be the last person to sully someone elses beliefs purely because they personally disagree with them. I'm sure if anyone called his beliefs "crazy talk" they would be banned.

I'm pretty sure this is happened already, I'm fairly sure it didn't lead to bannings. Maybe I have thicker skin than others?

NinjaBart wrote:

It was pointed out to him by three people, yet he hasn't edited any of it out.

What the heck do you mean by this? What haven't I edited out?

Do you mean the crazy talk line? Do you think I should edit the post, and lie about what I did?

NinjaBart wrote:

Whats the point of having a mod who won't let anyone else express their beliefs without being branded crazy?

JustHalf

syke wrote:

I saw the thread, Justhalf was well well out of order.

Having edited the comments of others, dleeted some of their posts and split the thread, he's not edited his own post where teh offence took place even though he acknowledged his wrong-doing.

I think the admins will note that I deleted only one post ( in the original thread, and they'll see why ), and Keu deleted all of the rest; including blanking her first reply. I did not edit any posts.

I'm glad vBulletin 3 keeps a decent record of this. When you have rights to mod or admin the board, you can see who deleted the posts. In every case on the split thread, the person who deleted the posts was Keu.

If anyone had bothered to read the other thread, you would have seen that I have already mentioned who deleted what. I'm looking at you, Corinthian.

In summary, the fact that I made one off-colour joke (an admittedly poor case of judgment) does not mean that you excuse yourself from the responsibility to get your facts straight before making accusations.

keu

I deleted them because I have no intention of having my opinion epxpressed as "crazy talk"..and although I was allowed to change the title, you still had the thread linked from the original thread under "crazy talk"

and for the record, the post was entirely on topic, I looked at the bible in context and I discussed the issue of homosexuality in that context.
I responded to two other questions, which weren't exactly on topic but were within the remit of the subject.

I'm not a practising catholic, but I've read the bible, (studied) which is more than I can say for a lot of people who express views on christianity.
You said my views were unitarian, perhaps if you brought up that issue in the originial thread (before splitting it up and denouncing it as heresay) I might have been able to clarify a trinitarian perspective too.



and there was one post I didn't delete, I don't know who did, but it was deleted after the original thread was split.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

I deleted them because I have no intention of having my opinion epxpressed as "crazy talk"..and although I was allowed to change the title, you still had the thread linked from the original thread under "crazy talk"

Fair enough, but you didn't ask me to change the link before deleting your posts. In future, remember that I'll be happy to fix something like this. I hope you won't need to ask.

keu wrote:

and for the record, the post was entirely on topic, I looked at the bible in context and I discussed the issue of homosexuality in that context.
I responded to two other questions, which weren't exactly on topic but were within the remit of the subject.

I'm not a practising catholic, but I've read the bible, (studied) which is more than I can say for a lot of people who express views on christianity.
You said my views were unitarian, perhaps if you brought up that issue in the originial thread (before splitting it up and denouncing it as heresay) I might have been able to clarify a trinitarian perspective too.

I said "vaguely unitarian". I stand by my action of splitting the thread, for the reasons I've mentioned on the Christianity forum.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

and there was one post I didn't delete, I don't know who did, but it was deleted after the original thread was split.

Yep. It was in the original thread. Admins can see what was in it. I deleted it because I thought the thread was getting spammy enough with one smiley replies.

bonkey

This is probably the wrong place to ask....

but the objection that the interpretation of Christianity was "vaguely unitarian" seems bogus to me. A quick google seems to reveal an awful lot of religions which are "Unitarian Christian", so I can't see how something being Unitarian immediately disqualifies it from being Christian. But thats just me being a picky bastid as usual.

Having said that....this whole argument seems to devolve down to the fact that Just left the tag "Crazy Talk" in a link which keu couldn't edit. As a matter of interest keu...did you PM Just and ask him to change that link before coming here with it?

jc

JustHalf

The quote marks in "vaguely unitiarian" are extremely important. If you want to go into what I'm talking about, send me a PM. It's a lot to explain, and I don't have time to post it on a thread and answer whoever decides to chime in.

The split topic would have been a great place to discuss what I mean, but I'm afraid it's gone. Most of it can be resurrected, but it'll need to be with Keu's consent.

Keu didn't send me any PMs about the link text, but to be fair she didn't start this thread.

And to be clear, most of the major argument here comes from misinformed people making false accusations. Accusations that they didn't bother to verify.

keu

I might understand if I thought that the posts were offensive, but they weren't, I think people are looking for understanding of the subject and my intention was to clarify some aspects (Paul and the corinthians~where homosexuality is discussed)

To be quite honest, I'm not surprised with your actions as a mod, I'm more surprised this issue has been brought up as a topic of discussion, I thought mods could do what they liked and fùck anyone who objects, which seems to be the general persuasion here. So to have others object is very surprising indeed.

My opinion from a theosophical point of view was rejected at Philosophy, (I had myself removed with purposeful direction: ie:banned) the paranormal doesn't stretch to encompass a spiritual perspective either and now I'm just too radical for christianity. I've already requested a spiritual forum and even with the backing of 11 people (yes 11 people) it was denied.
do I think the mods give a sh!t about this thread and the issues therin? Fùck no.

I feel loved.
and special.

keu

Having said that....this whole argument seems to devolve down to the fact that Just left the tag "Crazy Talk" in a link which keu couldn't edit.

I didn't bring the subject here, someone else did.
and no I didn't pm the mod to ask to change the link title..tbh I genuinely feel it would have achieved nothing.
It isn't just about having the thread split..it was the reasons why the thread was split and I didn't want to get into a heated debate with a mod who was going to win the argument anyway.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

The quote marks in "vaguely unitiarian" are extremely important. If you want to go into what I'm talking about, send me a PM. It's a lot to explain, and I don't have time to post it on a thread and answer whoever decides to chime in.

The split topic would have been a great place to discuss what I mean, but I'm afraid it's gone. Most of it can be resurrected, but it'll need to be with Keu's consent.

Keu didn't send me any PMs about the link text, but to be fair she didn't start this thread.

And to be clear, most of the major argument here comes from misinformed people making false accusations. Accusations that they didn't bother to verify.

Wow, firstly you directed people here to take this arguement up and when someone did you refuse to answer publically and suggest PM.

Secondly, I think if you are going to claim that you didn't mean the term you used ("vaguely unitarian") then you need to explain why, because to me it looks like its a cop out why of justifying why youre oppressing opinions that you don't agree with.

Thirdly, it was well pointed out in the thread that the poster and users found the remark you made objectional. You didn't do anything about it, yet have edited other posts because they were off topic. I would argue that your views on Keu's spirituality are off topic, certainly way more off topic than what she posted, and have no place on the thread. Why are they still there?

Justhalf if you are going to impose these rules on others, then follow them yourself. Otherwise, perhaps put a disclaimer in the charter suggesting that branches of christianity that don't meet your approval are open to ridicule by the mods. As the mod of the board, you have put across a terrible message and pretty bad example.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

I might understand if I thought that the posts were offensive, but they weren't, I think people are looking for understanding of the subject and my intention was to clarify some aspects (Paul and the corinthians~where homosexuality is discussed)

They weren't offensive, but you have to admit that almost all of the original post was spent defining your particular beliefs.

keu wrote:

To be quite honest, I'm not surprised with your actions as a mod, I'm more surprised this issue has been brought up as a topic of discussion, I thought mods could do what they liked and fùck anyone who objects, which seems to be the general persuasion here. So to have others object is very surprising indeed.

No, admins make sure the mods stay in line. This feedback forum allows people to, among other things, complain about alleged mod abuses.

keu wrote:

My opinion from a theosophical point of view was rejected at Philosophy, (I had myself removed with purposeful direction: ie:banned) the paranormal doesn't stretch to encompass a spiritual perspective either and now I'm just too radical for christianity. I've already requested a spiritual forum and even with the backing of 11 people (yes 11 people) it was denied.
do I think the mods give a sh!t about this thread and the issues therin? Fùck no.

You are taking an interpretation of my words that is not intended.

If you were as "radical" as you imply (and if I was as oppressive as most people here seem to think I am), I would have deleted all your posts or moved them to another board. As it stands, I split them from the original thread and left them in a thread of their own.

You were free to continue the discussion we had their, but you chose to delete your posts. That was your decision.

keu

They weren't offensive, but you have to admit that almost all of the original post was spent defining your particular beliefs.

/walks away.

NinjaBart

JustHalf wrote:

If you were as "radical" as you imply (and if I was as oppressive as most people here seem to think I am), I would have deleted all your posts or moved them to another board. As it stands, I split them from the original thread and left them in a thread of their own.

I don't know about that. Historically, Christian oppressors ran smear campaigns and sullied the names of their enemies, along with trying to stamp them out, seems "in form" of you to me.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Wow, firstly you directed people here to take this arguement up and when someone did you refuse to answer publically and suggest PM.

This is dubious in the extreme. Your words sound like I haven't contributed anything to this thread.

syke wrote:

Secondly, I think if you are going to claim that you didn't mean the term you used ("vaguely unitarian") then you need to explain why, because to me it looks like its a cop out why of justifying why youre oppressing opinions that you don't agree with.

"Oppressing opinions"? You realise you just walked into a minefield, right?

And quite frankly you can f*ck off if you think I'm going to explain how Keu's beliefs don't seem to be Christian beliefs, particularly when most of the evidence I had to base that claim on has been blanked by Keu.

Particularly to someone who makes false claims about me. These could result from two things: you not being bothered to investigate and irresponsibly jumping to conclusions, or you just being a bare-faced liar. I'm assuming it's the former. You've yet to admit that you've made false claims about me.

I have no problem explaining this stuff to Bonkey, as he hasn't been pointlessly antagonistic. I'm not willing to devote a great deal of time explaining my opinion to someone who seems to just want to pick a fight.

syke wrote:

Thirdly, it was well pointed out in the thread that the poster and users found the remark you made objectional. You didn't do anything about it, yet have edited other posts because they were off topic.

(my emphasis added)

Syke, I did do something about it. I said, publically, that it was a joke made in bad taste; that it was an error of judgment. Maybe you mean that I just didn't take the action you would like me to take, which seems to be editing my post after the fact. I'm not willing to do this.

The "edited other posts because they were off topic" line needs to be clarified. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being ridiculously pedantic; that you're referring to recent developments on the Christianity board only.

I edited no-one elses posts, save the one post by Keu that I deleted (and this was merely a case of hitting the edit button instead of the delete button). I did split a thread. I did not edit any of the posts in the new thread, not even my own.

So, I didn't do what you are claiming. You should admit this.

syke wrote:

I would argue that your views on Keu's spirituality are off topic, certainly way more off topic than what she posted, and have no place on the thread. Why are they still there?

They are still there because I left them there. And they are on-topic in the split thread. End of story.

syke wrote:

Justhalf if you are going to impose these rules on others, then follow them yourself. Otherwise, perhaps put a disclaimer in the charter suggesting that branches of christianity that don't meet your approval are open to ridicule by the mods. As the mod of the board, you have put across a terrible message and pretty bad example.

I agree I've made an error of judgement; that my joke was both in bad taste and easily seen as abuse. I'm sorry this happened.

I do attempt to be consistent and fair. The "crazy talk" line was unfair. I've apologised for this. The splitting of the thread was a reasonable action, it was fair.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

/walks away.

A "here is what my particular belief system is" post is off-topic in a thread about the Christian interpretation of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I stand by my decision to split the thread.

You had the option to continue the discussion about your beliefs, but chose not to. You still have that choice, just not in a thread devoted to a different topic.

JustHalf

NinjaBart wrote:

I don't know about that. Historically, Christian oppressors ran smear campaigns and sullied the names of their enemies, along with trying to stamp them out, seems "in form" of you to me.

I think it's a bit rich of you, considering the actions of yourself and syke, to make these accusations about me.

Keep your personal insults at the door, particularly when you are unqualified to make such judgments about my character.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

A "here is what my particular belief system is" post is off-topic in a thread about the Christian interpretation of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

So is an "I think your belief system is crazy talk" post, yet surprisingly, you haven't deleted, moved or edited that post.

keu

And quite frankly you can f*ck off if you think I'm going to explain how Keu's beliefs don't seem to be Christian beliefs, particularly when most of the evidence I had to base that claim on has been blanked by Keu.

I can assure you my beliefs, rather my opinions were being expresssed from a christian perspective. Basically what your saying is, my christian views don't align with yours and that mine are wrong. I'm curious to know with who's authority you speak.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

So is an "I think your belief system is crazy talk" post, yet surprisingly, you haven't deleted, moved or edited that post.

I have however apologised for it. Anyone with the patience to read the following few posts will see that I say it was a case of poor judgement. You're also misrepresenting that post. The post was a "stay on topic, off-topic stuff sent here" post, with a poor joke in it. It is my responsibility as a mod to put in that kind of post (though obviously with a better choice of words).

Answer the rest of my points, or the only reasonable assumption I can make is that you're just trying to pick a fight. You repeatedly make false claims about me, claims that are not merely a difference of opinion but can be proved to be factaully incorrect. The actions that I have actually taken, you misrepresent. When I point this out to you, you ignore it.

I'm being honest about my mistake, and have apologised for it, yet you continue to slur my character. Stop this nonsense.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

And quite frankly you can f*ck off if you think I'm going to explain how Keu's beliefs don't seem to be Christian beliefs, particularly when most of the evidence I had to base that claim on has been blanked by Keu.

Particularly to someone who makes false claims about me. These could result from two things: you not being bothered to investigate and irresponsibly jumping to conclusions, or you just being a bare-faced liar. I'm assuming it's the former. You've yet to admit that you've made false claims about me.

Where did I make false claims? I simply state that you deleted a view of christianity that you didn't agree with (I used the word oppression, which is a stronger way of saying that, perhaps). If you are going to say its because its off topic then why is your off-topic offensive post still there? (besides as the corinthian pointed out, if you are explaining your views from a different version of christianity then its quite on-topic).

Just can you clarify this. If I post an ontopic insult on your board, and then say its a joke. You won't edit, delete or move the post (or ban me). Is this correct, because otherwise you are basically allowing one set of rules for you and another set for everyone else.

Incidently, there is no need for abusiveness in your posts. I'm being quite civil in trying express myself, I have not name called. I have merely expressed my view of events and am puzzled as to what the rules are in your board.

keu

I'm being honest about my mistake, and have apologised for it, yet you continue to slur my character. Stop this nonsense.

Jesus is very forgiving apparantly..I suggest you get in touch with him.

GuanYin

keu wrote:

Jesus is very forgiving apparantly..I suggest you get in touch with him.

Keu, your not helping your case by being abusive or slagging him off (which is just tit-for-tat).

Ok JH, having read your PM, I apologise for suggesting you were oppressing Keu, you were merely ridiculing her beliefs.

However you have posted on your board that her beliefs are crazy talk. You can be as sorry as you like for the incident, but leaving an offensive comment sitting there is poor form unless you are happy to set a precident that such abusive comments are OK in christianity once you say it was a joke.

keu

I was actually being honest.

"yet you continue to slur my character. Stop this nonsense."

isn't this what he did to me?..but its ok because he's a mod.

maybe he should ask the holy spirit for discernment.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Where did I make false claims?

Come on syke, I've pointed them out already.

syke wrote:

I simply state that you deleted a view of christianity that you didn't agree with (I used the word oppression, which is a stronger way of saying that, perhaps).

This is a false claim. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Keu deleted her posts, in the new thread. Splitting a thread does not constitute deleting posts, because at no point are any posts deleted.

Here is the complete, unedited content of the one post I deleted:

---

amp wrote:

..it made baby jebubs cry.

---

This does not describe a view of Christianity, and if you think deleting obviously spammy posts counts as "oppression" then you're an idiot.

syke wrote:

If you are going to say its because its off topic then why is your off-topic offensive post still there? (besides as the corinthian pointed out, if you are explaining your views from a different version of christianity then its quite on-topic).

Just can you clarify this. If I post an ontopic insult on your board, and then say its a joke. You won't edit, delete or move the post (or ban me). Is this correct, because otherwise you are basically allowing one set of rules for you and another set for everyone else.

No, I'd delete the insult and any discussion about the insult. But it's different if a moderator of the board does the same thing, deleting his own work after the fact and stamping out criticism of his actions.

It screams of "how dare you criticise me!". This in turn screams of "oppression", don't you think?

syke wrote:

Incidently, there is no need for abusiveness in your posts. I'm being quite civil in trying express myself, I have not name called. I have merely expressed my view of events and am puzzled as to what the rules are in your board.

You've certainly made false claims about me, and misrepresented actions of mine. I'm obviously not flattered.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

"yet you continue to slur my character. Stop this nonsense."

isn't this what he did to me?..but its ok because he's a mod.

maybe he should ask the holy spirit for discernment.

Come on Keu, don't start.

I did not "continue to slur [your] character". I made a bad joke which in hindsight was a case of really poor judgement. Although this could reasonably be perceived as slurring your character, I have definitely not continued to do so.

And it was not okay for me to do it in the first place, which is why I apologised. If it was okay for me to do it, I wouldn't have apologised. As I've said quite a few times already, I made a mistake. I'm sorry for it.

Sounds like I'm admitting fault, doesn't it? That it's not okay?

keu

Splitting a thread does not constitute deleting posts, because at no point are any posts deleted.

the posts didnt make any sense after you split the thread, they were taken out of context..because THEY WERE ON TOPIC in the original thread.

"..it made baby jebubs cry"
consdiering your actions, I thought this response to them was apt. (I could have b!tched about it..instead I made a joke)

This does not describe a view of Christianity

again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

considering these people acted freely in taking this topic up here, they must have seen or felt some form of obvious oppresion. I didn't put anyone up to it. I did feel like I was being fùcked over, I could have shouted about it but after being around boards this long, I'm quite used to the dictatorship it subscribes to and I didn't see the point in complaining.

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a sh!t..the rest of this is between you and the other mods who have taken up the issue.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Ok JH, having read your PM, I apologise for suggesting you were oppressing Keu, you were merely ridiculing her beliefs.

Yep. Poor form on my part. I can come up with a ton of excuses for doing so, but that choice of words was frankly inexcusable.

syke wrote:

However you have posted on your board that her beliefs are crazy talk. You can be as sorry as you like for the incident, but leaving an offensive comment sitting there is poor form unless you are happy to set a precident that such abusive comments are OK in christianity once you say it was a joke.

I don't see this as setting that type of precident. I simply want to avoid crushing dissent like a Stalinist.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Come on syke, I've pointed them out already.

OK, I already apologised for saying your opressed her and I was wrong to say you deleted her posts.

You moved them to another thread which you entitled crazy talk, and marked as crazy talk in the original thread. Now, some may say thats oppressing someones beleifs, but in hindsight I think ridiculing is a better term.

JustHalf wrote:

No, I'd delete the insult and any discussion about the insult. But it's different if a moderator of the board does the same thing, deleting his own work after the fact and stamping out criticism of his actions.

It screams of "how dare you criticise me!". This in turn screams of "oppression", don't you think?

No, it looks to me like you are too stubborn to realise that the link in the original thread is quite offensive. You of all people should know that belief and spirituality are very sensitive subjects and some people don't like having them questioned.

You are "continually" slurring Keu by having the term "crazy talk" there in the thread. If you were to be consistant then you just need to edit out crazy talk and put in a reason for edit saying "offensive remark removed". Which I'm sure is what you would do for anyone else.

JustHalf wrote:

You've certainly made false claims about me, and misrepresented actions of mine. I'm obviously not flattered.

Which I re-addressed, you however have now called me an idiot (or implied as much) and told me to F*ck off.

Why do you need to resort to that?

JustHalf

keu wrote:

the posts didnt make any sense after you split the thread, they were taken out of context..because THEY WERE ON TOPIC in the original thread.

I disagreed. As mod, I made the call. I stand by that decision.

keu wrote:

"..it made baby jebubs cry"
consdiering your actions, I thought this response to them was apt. (I could have b!tched about it..instead I made a joke)

I thought it was spammy and added nothing to the discussion, so I deleted it. Bear in mind that your only contribution to this particular post was a smiley.

JustHalf: This does not describe a view of Christianity
Keu: again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

The subject of my statement was a post containing only the phrase "..it made baby jebubs cry" followed by . This does not describe a view of Christianity. It does not, in fact, really describe anything.

keu wrote:

considering these people acted freely in taking this topic up here, they must have seen or felt some form of obvious oppresion. I didn't put anyone up to it.

Obviously they did. I never claimed you put anyone up to it.

keu wrote:

I did feel like I was being fùcked over, I could have shouted about it but after being around boards this long, I'm quite used to the dictatorship it subscribes to and I didn't see the point in complaining.

I told you that you could take it up on Feedback. Boards is a dictatorship, but there are lesser and greater dictators.

keu

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

I rest my case.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

JustHalf: This does not describe a view of Christianity
Keu: again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

The subject of my statement was a post containing only the phrase "..it made baby jebubs cry" followed by . This does not describe a view of Christianity. It does not, in fact, really describe anything..

You are either being deliberately obtuse or don't have as good a grasp as english as you think.

justhalf wrote:

Your response was off-topic. It was proposing a radically different interpretation of Christianity, one that isn't actually Christian.

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

Keu was asking who were you to judge. You seem to have seriously changed your story since this all started. A closed mind remains empty you know.

keu

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

eh..../
y'know I've been banned from spiritual forums for having a christian view (I mentioned Jesus once and they all scuttled off and hid under rocks)..me confused.....if I wasn't describing christianity..how do you percieve was I was talking about?

(genuinely curious)

am I that radical?

JustHalf

syke wrote:

OK, I already apologised for saying your opressed her and I was wrong to say you deleted her posts.

You moved them to another thread which you entitled crazy talk, and marked as crazy talk in the original thread. Now, some may say thats oppressing someones beleifs, but in hindsight I think ridiculing is a better term.

Yeah, unfortunately I didn't see that post of yours before I made the post that you just quoted.

syke wrote:

No, it looks to me like you are too stubborn to realise that the link in the original thread is quite offensive. You of all people should know that belief and spirituality are very sensitive subjects and some people don't like having them questioned.

Yes, I do know this. Not from my own attitudes, I might add. To be honest, I have very little time for people who don't want to state their opinions and yet don't want them questioned; religious or otherwise.

It's central to the ideal of freedom of speech that we can question the opinions of others.

I get questioned all the time about Christianity. I seriously don't mind. Abuse on the other hand I do, and I can see why someone would see my actions as abusive. Basically because it's the only reasonable interpretation. It was unreasonable for me to expect it to be taken as a joke, which is what I intended.

Still, it was an inexcusable choice of words. Poor judgement on my part.

syke wrote:

You are "continually" slurring Keu by having the term "crazy talk" there in the thread. If you were to be consistant then you just need to edit out crazy talk and put in a reason for edit saying "offensive remark removed". Which I'm sure is what you would do for anyone else.

Right. I'll consider this. I'm not going to take any action on this until tomorrow, though... I'm going to think about it first.

syke wrote:

Which I re-addressed, you however have now called me an idiot (or implied as much) and told me to F*ck off.

Why do you need to resort to that?

You readdressed them, but I didn't read your post until after I posted the one to which you are replying. (grammar is failing me now).

The implication was there only if you genuinely believed my action of deleting that particular post containing a quote and a smiley constituted oppression. And if you did think so, then quite frankly you would be being an idiot

I think you can understand the F*ck off line, considering how antagonistic you appeared.

keu

Yes, I do know this. Not from my own attitudes, I might add. To be honest, I have very little time for people who don't want to state their opinions and yet don't want them questioned; religious or otherwise.

Isn't this exactly what you did though?
I would have been very happy to have people question my opinions on the topic. actually you did question them, did my response not suffice?
So you removed my responses, rather than have someone question your authority.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

You are either being deliberately obtuse or don't have as good a grasp as english as you think.

I'm not being obtuse. The subject of the sentence was a particular post. I can

syke wrote:

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

Keu was asking who were you to judge. You seem to have seriously changed your story since this all started. A closed mind remains empty you know.

I'm the mod of the Christianity forum, and I've been a Christian for over two and a half years now. I'm know enough about the subject to notice several glaring "warning signs" in Keu's original post that ran completely at odds with any reasonable interpretation of the Bible. Now, she's entitled to have these beliefs, but I'm also entitled to question them.

Of course, it's difficult to talk about them now since my reference material has been blanked. If it had simply been deleted, I could have restored it or referred to it. I can't now.

And quite frankly, I have been put in place to judge such things. Islam is not Christianity. Gnosticism is not Christianity. "The one true source, of which Jesus was merely an avatar; all religions lead to God"-type belief systems are not Christian beliefs systems. Scientology is not a Christian belief system. Despite the fact that all of these belief systems make reference to Jesus, they are most certainly not Christian. Keu's belief made reference to Jesus, but didn't seem to be Christian.

If the mod of the Christianity forum is not permitted to decide what is Christian and what is not, then there's no point in calling it the Christianity forum.

keu wrote:

eh..../
y'know I've been banned from spiritual forums for having a christian view (I mentioned Jesus once and they all scuttled off and hid under rocks)..me confused.....if I wasn't describing christianity..how do you percieve was I was talking about?

(genuinely curious)

am I that radical?

If you're genuinely curious, start a thread on the Christianity forum. Certainly, the feedback forum is no place for such a discussion.

I was interested in such a discussion. This was the reason I replied to your original post, and for splitting the thread (as opposed to deleting off-topic posts).

JustHalf

keu wrote:

Isn't this exactly what you did though?
I would have been very happy to have people question my opinions on the topic. actually you did question them, did my response not suffice?
So you removed my responses, rather than have someone question your authority.

Woah, dubious claims abound here.

You're the one who deleted your posts. I did not remove your responses, I moved them. You removed them from the board (actually, just from being visible; I and any admin can still see them).

"rather than have someone question your authority"? What the heck?

This is the place to question my authority. I was the one to suggest people go here in the first place.

keu

"I'm making an effort to help you out, why don't you make an effort to help yourself? - JustHalf"

and you think taking away my rep points helps the situation?

I didnt bring the fùcking subject up, but for what its worth I agree with the other posters.

NinjaBart

JustHalf wrote:

If the mod of the Christianity forum is not permitted to decide what is Christian and what is not, then there's no point in calling it the Christianity forum.

I'd be inclined to think the mod of he christianity forum is there to ensure that there are no abusive posts or trolling. Certainly not to contribute to these things.

I don't think you have any right to decide what is classified as christianity. Keu was sincere in her post, she is entitled to believe in chirst and her take on christianity. For you to dismiss and ridicule these beliefs as you are continuing to do here, make you an unfit mod for any forum.

keu

phlematic wrote:

I do not agree that sin means wrong doing. To me, sin represents the dispicable illusion that God has dictated to us what wrong doing is. I find the idea that God would use such a preposterous and easily misinterpreted means as prophets (aka the bible) to be laughable. Surely if God truly did not want us to act in certain ways, and wanted to make this known to us, we would simply KNOW already. And this does not mean he controls us, we still have the ability to choose to sin or not, but at least all of his flock would be free of the ambiguity that comes with using a fallible human being to convey His most exalted mandates. Unfortuneatly I must bring this to my main point. Sin is not wrong doing, but the attempt by some members of the human race to control others through lies guilt domination and fear. The bible is the greatest insult to human rights I can concieve of. And it's depressing that so many cannot see it for what it is.

I like the idea of a God. I truly do. An all powerful being that loves us all and is infinately compassionate. However, I find it all too convenient that God has happened to agree with whatever insecure male theocracy that ran nations, be it the bigoted male centric world that spawned the old testament or the church controlled europe that rewrote it to suit themselves over the entire last few centuries in europe.

"Sin" comes from the insecurities of man, not God. Religion has little to with God.(Can you taste the irony?)

and I spose this is christian too? incidently this is from the same thread.
is phlematic not defining his own beliefs here?
(apologies to phlematic, just using your post to make a point)
so, how exactly did my posts get removed and phlematics are perfectly ok?
as far as I'm concerned I've just been singled out. Why?

keu

phlematic wrote:

To say that homosexuality is genetic would be misleading. To be precise, everything to do with a human being is given potential by their genes, but not dictated by it. Ie, your genes have provided the potential to get cancer during your life, but you don't neccessarily get it.

Most (scientists that is)agree that homosexuality is decided pre birth however. One theory is that if a woman has several boy children in a row then there is too much of a build up of male hormones in the womb lining. The body counters with too much female hormones thereby causing the brain to develop in some areas as a womans would.

To assume it was genetic would be to say that someone was born with it. To say that would mean that God created a person with the urge and temptation to sin. "

Speaking of which why has it been thousands of years since any seas parted or cities exploded (Sodom and Gemorrah, I'm looking at you.)?

oh ...very christian/...

justhalf wrote:

And quite frankly, I have been put in place to judge such things. Islam is not Christianity. Gnosticism is not Christianity. "The one true source, of which Jesus was merely an avatar; all religions lead to God"-type belief systems are not Christian beliefs systems. Scientology is not a Christian belief system. Despite the fact that all of these belief systems make reference to Jesus, they are most certainly not Christian. Keu's belief made reference to Jesus, but didn't seem to be Christian.

does anybody else see the hypocracy?

/stupid fùcking arguments about nothing.~let it go

Crash

Em, i'm not quite sure how you're second quote there relates to anything, if as such your post was defining your views for a lot of it (as is my understanding of this as none of us who arent regular christianity forum readers have anything to go by thanks to the removal of Keu's posts by (from what i understand) Keu) whereas the second post of Phlematics that you quoted is a debate upon the genetic issue of homosexuality which was raised in Flogens post prior to it. so all you've actually done is taken a post thats in the thread which shows someones views on a topic, not their religious views on a whole, and use it to back up an argument.

If there is a copy of Keu's original post knocking about i would be interested to read it - You dont have the text you typed anywhere Keu? it'd help put a lot of things in context as this argument just seems to be turning in circles over the same points with a complete lack of evidence either way.

Gordon

keu's a she?
Ah that's refreshing.

keu

no..I don't have the text, I deleted them.

so all you've actually done is taken a post thats in the thread which shows someones views on a topic,

exactly.
my posts were my views on the topic, according to the mod my views didn't correlate with the christian view and so they were removed.
In context..I don't find that phlematics views are comming from a particularly "christian perspective" either. Sounds very scientific to me.

(just btw..I don't have issues with phlematics perspective..I would just like to think I'm entitled to my opinion too)