Christianity Board: Debate or Dogma?

The Corinthian

Many here do not post to the Christianity board because there is a popular perception is that it is essentially censored rather than moderated. Topics or discussions that are deemed off-topic or un-Christian (by that I mean that they do not conform to the moderators own definitions of Christianity) are unceremoniously deleted. Deviation from this orthodoxy is apparently not tolerated.

As with any discussion, inconsistency in another party’s argument is topical to debate. One of these inconsistencies is the argumentative tactic of claiming that one will address one or more points when they “find the time” then conveniently never do. In this thread, this tactic is practiced on two occasions (here and here). When the same individual claims that they will respond when they “find the time”; I point out that, given past experience, one should not hold one’s breath for this, my post is deleted. Then a response to said points appears. When I question this, my second post is deleted and I am told, via PM, that both posts “contributed nothing to the thread”. He apparently felt that this post, on the other hand, was topical.

The problem is such that any debate is at this stage only tolerated so long as it does not challenge the apparent religious views of the incumbent moderator. When those views are challenged the debate is side stepped or simply deleted.

If the Christianity board were meant to be a mouthpiece for a particular evangelical denomination, I would ask that this is made transparent (with a sticky explaining this, for example) rather than continue the pretence that it is a forum of debate on matters relating to Christianity. Otherwise, I would have to question the impartiality and competence of the incumbent moderator if it is truly meant to be such an open forum.

GuanYin

I've made my views on this known already but despite the fact that I treat peoples beliefs in the christianity forum with the utmost respect, I have been accused of trolling or insulting others by the hierarchy. The irony is, when I and others such as keu express beliefs there they are ridiculed and called non-christian - its seems tje moderator had decided to take it upon himself to decided what christianity is, which many, have expressed their unhappiness with.

At present there is no forum on boards.ie that allows frank and open discussion of christian beliefs. The "christianity forum" is a pulpit for JH and his mates and there is very much a case of one rule for these people and another rule for the rest of you.

Aswell as the case TC highlighted above, my previous post where I get told off for insulting a poster when the others poster actually insulted me, and admitted and apologised for it is a prime example of the mentality on the board.

If its to stay a community forum then at least isolate the community and perhaps create another mainstream board where religion/faith may be discussed without selective moderating and oppressive behaviour.

The consensus that I have seen so far is that most people feel disinclined to post because of the actions of the mod. The only person who seems supportive of the current establishment is a friend of the mod :rolleyes:

therecklessone

Maybe its time for a Provisional Christianity Board? You can call JH and chums stickies...

Maximilian

"And the Lord spoketh: Are not y'all safer from these fanatic loons, uh-huh, having them locked up in there, by themselves, rather than annoying us in the real world forums with their looove Jesus & praise the blessed midget crap...and the Lord did drop a heavy tabernacle on their toes etc. and Jacob did reply: ooh I see your point oh Lord Is not my hovercraft filled with thy sacred eels"

(Hooligans 12:16)

Leave them to it I say, the brainwashed idiots.

DeVore

Well thats a tolerant opinion. Just as well you dont moderate anything either isnt it

DeV.

therecklessone

Maximilian wrote:

"And the Lord spoketh: Are not y'all safer from these fanatic loons, uh-huh, having them locked up in there, by themselves, rather than annoying us in the real world forums with their looove Jesus & praise the blessed midget crap...and the Lord did drop a heavy tabernacle on their toes etc. and Jacob did reply: ooh I see your point oh Lord Is not my hovercraft filled with thy sacred eels"

(Hooligans 12:16)

Leave them to it I say, the brainwashed idiots.

If you'd left the brainwashed idiots bit out you'd be getting +rep my friend.

Still, inspired work, you should try a whole Bible of it.

pickarooney

"Inspired" by Monty Python no less.

Hobart

I agree with both TC's and syke's postings. In particular I find the moderators refusal to answer or respond to something which may be deemed "awkward" both frustrating and laughable.

I read the debate, which started off with keu's .... posting (a posting I believe was edited by keu and split from another thread by JH) and found the discussion, on the whole, interesting and informative, up to the point where 2 users start having a go at each other.

I also agree with the assertian that some of syke's postings in this forum can appear to be trolly. However I think his postings on this forum are borne out of a frustration of the moderation sytle on this board and his past dealings with JH, I also don't think your post count thing or your Avatar text help.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't the admins create a theology/ christianity board and appoint a seperate set of mods. Rename chritianity to Roman Chatolisism (sp?) and leave that board as a seperate "external" entity? From what I have seen of late, the only acceptable line wrt christianity is one that conforms to the mods believe, all other branching seems to be deemed irrelevant and silly.

[edit] Just read the end of syke's posting where he basicallys says what I say wrt a new board. Great minds and all that eh!!.......[/edit]

Amz

Um ... I think a large portion of posters on the Christianity forum would have a problem with it being named Roman Catholicism.

Also ... Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ.

Hobart

Amz wrote:

Um ... I think a large portion of posters on the Christianity forum would have a problem with it being named Roman Catholicism.

I stated my reasons above for this. I also feel that if the discussion's were allowed to develop into coherant and proper debates there would be no need for any change. However, as stated above, the only "allowable" discussion of late seems to centre around RC, and the RC interpretation of the Testaments and faith in general. IMO if the board continues in it's current vein the saying "large portion of posters on the Christianity forum" will be a mute one.


oh, and touche Amz.

ecksor

I believe the point is that a large proportion of the active posters are not roman catholic and the forum is meant to encompass all christian faiths.

pickarooney

Seems the problem is that as it currently stands, it doesn't encompass them all. Or even three quarters...

Hobart

ecksor wrote:

I believe the point is that a large proportion of the active posters are not roman catholic and the forum is meant to encompass all christian faiths.

I'm in no disagreement with what the forum is "meant" to be. From what I have seen of late there zero tolerance allowed for other peoples perception of what christianity means to them, and a strict line must be followed. A line which seems to fit in quite nicely with the moderators personal beliefs.

JustHalf

The Corinthian wrote:

One of these inconsistencies is the argumentative tactic of claiming that one will address one or more points when they “find the time” then conveniently never do.

For the last four weeks, I have been consistently spending 14-18 hours a day working or travelling to and from clients. There's also an ongoing personal situation which I won't mention here. Yet you quite snottily suggest that I am lying for the sake of convenience. This is offensive.

I didn't want to mention any of this as, quite frankly, it's absolutely none of your business. But your interpretation of events is entirely without charity and is unfair.

I also didn't claim that the "contributed nothing" reason was the reason I deleted the second post. Re-read your PM.

Hobart wrote:

I also agree with the assertian that some of syke's postings in this forum can appear to be trolly. However I think his postings on this forum are borne out of a frustration of the moderation sytle on this board and his past dealings with JH, I also don't think your post count thing or your Avatar text help.

Well, the parts of his posts which are out-and-out lies can't really be seen in a good light, can they?

Amz

JustHalf I think one of the main reasons why someone would point out your "I'll get back to it when I've time" comments is that you seem to have found time to post new responses to threads and ignore the previous issue which you were due to get back to.

Why not use the time you spend writing new responses and deal with and finish your earlier points?

GuanYin

Hobart wrote:

I also agree with the assertian that some of syke's postings in this forum can appear to be trolly. However I think his postings on this forum are borne out of a frustration of the moderation sytle on this board and his past dealings with JH, I also don't think your post count thing or your Avatar text help.

I guess you're right, I probably am slightly frustrated with the mods behaviour. I just read over the keu thread where the mod defended calls for moderation on posts by excelsior and neuro-praxis who between them had posted an insulting dismissal of a very good post, laced a post with sarcastic put downs and jabs (not the worst crime, but not really a good thing in matters of peoples faith) and referred to one poster as a "strange man on the internet". These were not offences and stay in the forum, along with an earlier comment by the mod himself labelling keu's belief as "crazy talk".

Meanwhile The Corinthian gets two posts deleted and PM'd because he questions the mods habit of avoiding resposes to valid points that he can't argue and I get accused of insulting someone for pointing out that they were being rude and insulting. When I ask the mod to point out where I was being insulting, he deleted my post and tells me not to post off topic.

Now what is the point of anyone who doesn't post what JH wants to hear, going near the Christianity Forum? Community Forums are all well and good but when they are the sole (or soul ) representation of christian comment on boards.ie and run by a mod like JH then whats the point.

As for my tag and post count, they were more to do with a discussion in a private forum about me being the new messiah (admittedly in reference to my comments on the state of the Christianity forum) and a subsequent comment on me being the Anti-messiah. The postcount was an add on and in fairness Vexorg has the same postcount set.

I'm not quite sure what you deem wrong with my avatar though.

[edit] Just read the end of syke's posting where he basicallys says what I say wrt a new board. Great minds and all that eh!!.......[/edit]

I've always said your mind was great

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

For the last four weeks, I have been consistently spending 14-18 hours a day working or travelling to and from clients. There's also an ongoing personal situation which I won't mention here.

As has been pointed out you have plenty of time to start new threads and even post to the same thread again, conveniently forgetting your promise to respond to the points of others. In the thread I highlighted you did so twice, yet found time to continue posting later the thread. I doubt it would take long to pick out further examples of this on the board.

And this is before one considers examples of where views that fail to fit into your definition of Christianity are simply deleted.

Yet you quite snottily suggest that I am lying for the sake of convenience. This is offensive.

I suspect your motivation is more an instinctive defense one than one of convenience. Not unlike the classic stock answer from a priest in school to an awkward theological question, that “God works in mysterious ways”.

Also, am I to take it that your being offended is supposed to engender sympathy?

I didn't want to mention any of this as, quite frankly, it's absolutely none of your business. But your interpretation of events is entirely without charity and is unfair.

Your personal life is irrelevant, in so far as it has been demonstrated above that you have no problem finding time to post. However, if you feel your personal life is an issue then it is the business of the community in so far as it may affect your ability to execute your role as a sole moderator competently.

I also didn't claim that the "contributed nothing" reason was the reason I deleted the second post. Re-read your PM.

Is your position then that my first post was deleted because it “contributed nothing” and my second was deleted because it supported the first then? You’re kind of splitting hairs at this stage, TBH.

ecksor

Hobart wrote:

I'm in no disagreement with what the forum is "meant" to be. From what I have seen of late there zero tolerance allowed for other peoples perception of what christianity means to them, and a strict line must be followed. A line which seems to fit in quite nicely with the moderators personal beliefs.

In that case, the remaining confusion is why you are singling out roman catholicism. I haven't been to the forum to have a good look but the impression I get is that the groups of posters that people are having problems with are not roman catholic, even if the offending discussions are regarding roman catholicism. Which group are you proposing to segregate exactly?

Maximilian

DeVore wrote:

Well thats a tolerant opinion. Just as well you dont moderate anything either isnt it

DeV.

Think of the Chaos. I would become the very authoritative figure which I despise. I would probably end up banning myself in a fit of frenzied schizophrenic moderation.

pickarooney wrote:

"Inspired" by Monty Python no less.

Well spotted! Eel filled hovercraft blatantly stolen from the Hungarian-English dictionary sketch! You have wonderful thighs.

therecklessone wrote:

If you'd left the brainwashed idiots bit out you'd be getting +rep my friend.

My sincere apologies - I was merely suggesting that because their cranial hygiene is so excellent, they are mono-browed double digit iq-ers, incapable of logical independent thought, odious, deformed and thoroughly execrable. No offence intended.

flogen

I completely agree with The Corinthian's suggestion that the rules of the forum is made clear. I would have assumed that the forum was there to debate topics relating to Christianity, to discuss beliefs rather than just believe them (so people could challenge the thought process of some part of Christianity, and others could explain it, elaborate on it and give their interpretation of it). Frankly I found similar in one of the last posts I made there regarding homosexuality. There was a good debate going on, I saw (for the first time) a christian explaining their view on homosexuality. Frankly I didn't agree but it helped me to understand it. The post I made was ignored for whatever reason, that may have been due to the keu incident in which things got a bit muddled.

At the moment it seems that the forum is for christians to talk about their beliefs, generally agree with them and almost sit in their own bubble. Fair enough if that's the intention of the forum, but it should be made known to posters that open debate is not welcome.

flogen

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

For the last four weeks, I have been consistently spending 14-18 hours a day working or travelling to and from clients. There's also an ongoing personal situation which I won't mention here. Yet you quite snottily suggest that I am lying for the sake of convenience. This is offensive.

I didn't want to mention any of this as, quite frankly, it's absolutely none of your business. But your interpretation of events is entirely without charity and is unfair.

Boo Fuppin Hoo!

I suppose your personal life is the reason you called keu's beliefs crazy talk and refused out and out to remove the offensive remark, which, contributed nothing to the thread it was on except to belittle the poster?

You quite frankly pick and choose what you answer, what you moderate and who is allowed do and say what. You should not be moderating a board open to the public.

You had plenty of time to respond to PM's and do all sorts of stuff but no time to respond to comments or replies that outwit you.

Furthermore, you invite users whose posts you have butchered and/or delted to take the debate to private discussion and then never respond to their PM's (I'm still waiting for your response to my last one and for you to clarify how you feel it appropriate to accuse me as you have for no reason while ignoring insults directed towards me that have been acknowledged and apologised for, and others that have been claimed to have been "idle jokes").

I suspect, that your sympathy card is to detract from the real scenario which is basically that you don't want posts on the board highlighting your mistakes or inability to argue a point so you remove them.

This is abusing your moderating for your own personal reasons, which is why we have threads like this and the previous ones over the keu incident where about 20 individuals condemned your actions.

Do you ever consider that all these people might have a valid point and hold up your hand and try and be a better mod? Because from where I'm sitting you just look like you think you have some sort of infallibility.

Well, the parts of his posts which are out-and-out lies can't really be seen in a good light, can they?

Which ones are these? Can you back that up? I have evidence in posts and PM's showing what happened.

JustHalf

The Corinthian wrote:

As has been pointed out you have plenty of time to start new threads and even post to the same thread again, conveniently forgetting your promise to respond to the points of others. In the thread I highlighted you did so twice, yet found time to continue posting later the thread. I doubt it would take long to pick out further examples of this on the board.

With regards to the three instances where I said I'd get back to people:

1. The first instance, which I quite frankly forgot about, is now being discussed later in the thread with Yoda.
2. The second instance, which is continued (as promised) here. I stopped contributing to that discussion because, quite frankly, the thread was veering off-topic and I didn't think the mod should be the one driving it off.
3. The third instance, which I followed up as promised.

The Corinthian wrote:

And this is before one considers examples of where views that fail to fit into your definition of Christianity are simply deleted.

If you could point me to a single post that was deleted by me, where in your view my motivation was that it did not fit in with "my definition of Christianity", I'd like to know about it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any; but I'm sure you have some evidence to back up your claim.

The Corinthian wrote:

I suspect your motivation is more an instinctive defense one than one of convenience. Not unlike the classic stock answer from a priest in school to an awkward theological question, that “God works in mysterious ways”.

I don't see the connection between what you suspect my motivation is and the answer presented in the second sentence.

The Corinthian wrote:

Also, am I to take it that your being offended is supposed to engender sympathy?

No, I neither require nor expect your sympathy; I'm simply pointing out your behaviour.

The Corinthian wrote:

Is your position then that my first post was deleted because it “contributed nothing” and my second was deleted because it supported the first then? You’re kind of splitting hairs at this stage, TBH.

Have you actually re-read the PM? I suggest you do.

Trojan

Rated.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Which ones are these? Can you back that up? I have evidence in posts and PM's showing what happened.

Read the start of this post.

GuanYin

Ahh no, you responded with one PM totally refusing to acknowledge facts put to you. Telling me it was up to me to prove I didn't insult anyone.

You ignored my second PM and logged off IRC when I tackled you on the matter there.

One PM which basically said nothing new is not a discussion.

JustHalf

I PM you, you PM me twice, I PM you back, you PM me back.

Sounds like a discussion to me. I did answer points you raised, I don't see why you can dismiss the discussion simply because you didn't agree with the points I raised in response.

And logging off IRC was rude on my part... I was returning the favour, only without sending an inflammatory statement right before I logged off. Still, your behaviour on IRC does not excuse mine. I genuinely regret my rudeness, and I'm sorry.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

I PM you, you PM me twice, I PM you back, you PM me back.

Sounds like a discussion to me. I did answer points you raised, I don't see why you can dismiss the discussion simply because you didn't agree with the points I raised in response.

And logging off IRC was rude on my part... I was returning the favour, only without sending an inflammatory statement right before I logged off. Still, your behaviour on IRC does not excuse mine. I genuinely regret my rudeness, and I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

But no, I still didn't see a discussion. You invited me to make a case, I've made a case and you haven't replied.

You alone of the three people involved are the only person who thinks I've insulted anyone. The only objection Excelsior had was me using his wifes name. Unfortunately I can't edit that as by the time he pointed it out my editing grace time had elapsed. He claimed no insult in my words.

On the other hand he acknowledged deliberately having a jab at me. He said he was making a joke the second time but apologised for insulting me (if it had insulted me, which it did, so I took his apology).

Your take on this is to ignore his actions totally and focus on telling me off for an offence that only you perceived.

Yet somehow you see no wrong in this? You delete my post that wasn't even arguing, just asking for clarification and then call me a liar.

Impartial mod eh?

damien

Dearie me.

I think this is going to spiral out of control again until it gets locked. Maybe the best thing to do is suspend the board until a new co-mod is found, agree to a new or more defined charter and then re-open for business and have everyone start with a new slate.

Stabshauptmann

syke wrote:

Boo Fuppin Hoo!

Always the best way to show you are open to a rational discussion...

You should not be moderating a board open to the public.

......

I'm still waiting for your response to my last [Private Message] and for you to clarify how you feel it appropriate to accuse me as you have for no reason while ignoring insults directed towards me that have been acknowledged and apologised for, and others that have been claimed to have been "idle jokes"

Im sorry but let be sure I understand you, I honestly dont want to misrepresent you. JH should not be moderating a PUBLIC forum if he doesnt want everyones input. Would the name not suggest that it’s a forum for Christians or those who respect/are interested in Christianity? Is a public forum with a clear name and simple charter not more likely in theory to find the type of ppl whos input would be useful than a hidden forum which nobody has anyway of knowing that it exists?

You seem to be suggesting that he go private, but whats different about going private, you just posted the contents of a private message on a public board??

you don't want posts on the board highlighting your mistakes or inability to argue a point so you remove them.

Im not a Christian and thus have no reason to go near the Christian forum, I know you could just tell me to go do some research but if you could be so kind as to tell me, or direct me to specific threads, are you A) Still harping on about the thing in the last thread where he appologised to keu or After disproving Christianity and angry that he wont accept this?

Do you ever consider that all these people might have a valid point and hold up your hand and try and be a better mod? Because from where I'm sitting you just look like you think you have some sort of infallibility.

Is that the thread where he admitted he made a mistake, appologised and said to remove his error from the record would be like pretending it never happened and that he is infallible?

All Ive read is the thread re:keu, ive not visited the forum because I dont have any interest in Christianity, if there is some threads which you think I might find enlightening in particular please feel free to suggest.
Since I’m not involved in said forum or this dispute the question of "Why am I writing all this" must have popped into your head. I supported the request for a separate spirituality forum, the idea went nowhere but Id like to bring it up again in light of this thread and the seemingly inadequacy of the current setup in the Christian forum.

I see religions as brands of philosophy and don’t understand why it is that simu doesn’t like them being discussed in Philosophy. I would like the remit of the existing forum widened or failing that a forum dedicated to spirituality - what you believe, where all the religions and ppl with non structured beliefs could civilly discuss their differing views. I’m one of the nonstructured groups, my beliefs do coincide in places with elements of other religions and Id like to discuss and expand on this without the need to traipse through Christianity, paganism, humanities etc.

So I put it to you that JH should left alone to his beliefs and ppl who dont share them can post in this new forum. Opinions?

BuffyBot

For the last four weeks, I have been consistently spending 14-18 hours a day working or travelling to and from clients. There's also an ongoing personal situation which I won't mention here.

Perhaps that's as compelling a reason as any for the addition of a co-mod on the forum. It's a difficult forum to moderate - any spirituality themed forum I've encountered (and that's quite a few) will have this sort of problem. If you have outside issues, then maybe, just maybe, moderation of the board and the issues it generates is something you would want to share the burden of.

If it were up to me, I'd see two divergent forums resulting from this - the Christianity forum for people who specifically identify themselves as Christian, feel they follow a Christian way of live, wish to find fellowship with other Christians who may inhabit boards.ie and/or have questions about their faith etc. A second spirituality/theology forum would then exist for other issues outside the realm of the religion specific board - the "big" theological questions/debates etc.

My two cent

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

With regards to the three instances where I said I'd get back to people:

1. The first instance, which I quite frankly forgot about, is now being discussed later in the thread with Yoda.
2. The second instance, which is continued (as promised) here. I stopped contributing to that discussion because, quite frankly, the thread was veering off-topic and I didn't think the mod should be the one driving it off.
3. The third instance, which I followed up as promised.

Of the first you’ll note that Yoda immediately points out that you did not actually address his posts.

On the second, your apparent response is again not actually addressing the issue as promised as I subsequently pointed out. The sub-discussion remains open at the time of this posting.

Your third and final point is simply the first again which was repeatedly side-stepped and which you responded to only after I raised the issue (despite what you claim in your PM).

If you could point me to a single post that was deleted by me, where in your view my motivation was that it did not fit in with "my definition of Christianity", I'd like to know about it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any; but I'm sure you have some evidence to back up your claim.

Of course I wouldn’t have any evidence - you’ve deleted it. However, your boundless tolerance of other people’s views of Christianity is probably best exemplified by this (original deleted but you were ultimately forced to admit your actions).

I don't see the connection between what you suspect my motivation is and the answer presented in the second sentence.

It was just an observation that convenience would be too simplistic a motivation and not really that pertinent to the overall discussion.

No, I neither require nor expect your sympathy; I'm simply pointing out your behaviour.

I never suggested that you required or expected my sympathy.

Have you actually re-read the PM? I suggest you do.

Yes, I have. And, as I’ve already said, you seem to claim that my first post was deleted because it “contributed nothing” and my second was deleted because it supported the first.

Shall we let everyone else read it and make up their minds too?

Your post was deleted as it contributed nothing to the thread. At all. How did your comment advance the discussion?

The fact that I noticed it while doing what you implied was unlikely to happen adds a certain level of irony to it.

If you have a problem with my modding, take it up with me via PMs, with the admins directly or via the Feedback forum. Don't hijack threads.

This is why I've deleted your second comment.

BEAT

I second the motion for adding a co-mod to the forum. It is for the reasons that Corinthian, Syke and Flogen posted that I do not post in that forum. I have had my issues with it in the past and just chose to stay away...but no one should really have to do that should they?

GuanYin

Necromancer wrote:

Always the best way to show you are open to a rational discussion...

As opposed to crying off an excuse for behaviour because of "issues"?

Im sorry but let be sure I understand you, I honestly dont want to misrepresent you. JH should not be moderating a PUBLIC forum if he doesnt want everyones input. Would the name not suggest that it’s a forum for Christians or those who respect/are interested in Christianity? Is a public forum with a clear name and simple charter not more likely in theory to find the type of ppl whos input would be useful than a hidden forum which nobody has anyway of knowing that it exists?

Well its depends on what branch of christianity your class yourself as. There are many christian churches with many different and radical views and most if not all have at least one large bone of contention with the others.

Then we can take the different temperature of christians, as we know there are some liberal chirstians in each particular flavourand then the more conservative turbo-christian types. The "Christianity Board" would seem to encompass all of these by name, yet in practice JH doesn't much seem to like those that deviate from his views. He has even appointed himself the judge of who is a christian and who isn't in another forum

You seem to be suggesting that he go private, but whats different about going private, you just posted the contents of a private message on a public board??

Did I, just now? Where?

If he goes private, he can discuss his branch of christianity without the need to interact with the people who might ask questions.

Im not a Christian and thus have no reason to go near the Christian forum, I know you could just tell me to go do some research but if you could be so kind as to tell me, or direct me to specific threads, are you A) Still harping on about the thing in the last thread where he appologised to keu or After disproving Christianity and angry that he wont accept this?

No, I am discussing a recent event where he warned me for asking another poster to refrain from smart insulting comments and suggested I was imagining things and being insulting myself. Of course he was the only one of the three of us who held this position and then when he found that the other poster had actually apologised remained indignant deleting a post where I merely asked where I had been insulting.

Misrepresenting a chain of events for personal appearance by deleting posts in inexcusable. He did the same to The Corinthian which prompted this thread (as I am subscribed to the thread I actually saw TC's post).

Is that the thread where he admitted he made a mistake, appologised and said to remove his error from the record would be like pretending it never happened and that he is infallible?

No we've moved on, but it should be noted that despite his apology he (A) never actually removed his offensive remarks and (B) continued on in the same manner afterwards.

True remorse implies a willingness to change.

Draupnir

DeV had the best idea regarding Christianity, make it like Soccer, install a new mod to team up with JustHalf, and it will be grand

Amz

I'm not sure if that'd work.

I know from my own experience of soccer I only applied for access when I felt there were a number of threads I wanted to respond to. It took a while for access to be granted and in certain cases the topic had "died". If a similar situation was brought in for Christianity I can imagine that would discourage people from posting also.

I believe an access requests procedure is a bit extreme in this case and should probably only be used as a last resort, as with soccer.

Perhaps we should just see how a co-mod/new mod works out first, before implimenting an access requests procedure.

Manach

My own 2c as a sometime contributer to the Christanity board. JustHalf is in my opinion doing a good job in keeping the lid on what is a fractious place at times. There is not that many places where Catholism can poke its head above the trenches and not get immediately stomped on . In general there are good questions being posed but at times the debate can dip.
I think though the notion of a 2nd mod to give a different view point is a good idea , and thought BuffyBots idea of a spirituality/theology section is good, I'd say Humanities for the moment is the place for those discussions.

Amz

Manach wrote:

My own 2c as a sometime contributer to the Christanity board. JustHalf is in my opinion doing a good job in keeping the lid on what is a fractious place at times. There is not that many places where Catholism can poke its head above the trenches and not get immediately stomped on

I'm not sure, perhaps I'm misinterpreting certain posts, but it seems that certain people are finding it difficult to differenciate between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. As with Hobart's posts above it appears that a distinction needs to be made and/or these people need to read up a bit.

Manach

Ok but offhand a majority of the posters would be non-Catholic on the Christainity board.

GuanYin

Manach wrote:

My own 2c as a sometime contributer to the Christanity board. JustHalf is in my opinion doing a good job in keeping the lid on what is a fractious place at times. There is not that many places where Catholism can poke its head above the trenches and not get immediately stomped on . In general there are good questions being posed but at times the debate can dip.

Errr as these threads have shown it seems many christians and catholics are disinclined to post on the forum because of the "lid" that is being kept.

flogen

Manach wrote:

There is not that many places where Catholism can poke its head above the trenches and not get immediately stomped on

That's not true IMO. The only time I would dis-regard a catholic or christian discussion is when it is being censored by one side or another. If your idea of Catholicism is some kind of religion that ignores fair and rational debate then I don't think it deserves to come out of the "trenches", my idea of catholicism, christianity or any religion is one of (among many, many other things) open-ness, honesty and respect of people and their ideals (while not always seeing eye to eye on them). For a religion to survive and grow it should be open to debate. I know this isn't always the way different churches operate, but it should be the way this perticular gathering of Christians and non-christians alike should operate.

flogen

JustHalf

syke wrote:

As opposed to crying off an excuse for behaviour because of "issues"?

Now syke, one must at least take a fair assessment of the evidence presented. I simply said that my time available to boards, over the past four weeks, was very little; and that this in turn led me to not having enough time as a regular poster to always catch up with past commitments as fast as others would have preferred.

I never once tried to shrug off responsibility for any of my decisions as mod due to time pressure or this other issue. I accept responsibility for my decisions, and until proven otherwise (by myself or others) I will believe they were the correct ones to make.

You're confusing two issues, syke. The first is a responsibility as a poster on the forum to follow through on commitments I have made. I believe I have fulfilled this responsibility, thought later than others may have wished. The second is a responsibility as mod to make the right decisions. Though I may be one person, my actions need to be considered in the capacity that I excercised them.

I'm assuming that, given the sentence "I suppose your personal life is the reason you called keu's beliefs crazy talk and refused out and out to remove the offensive remark, which, contributed nothing to the thread it was on except to belittle the poster?", that this is the sort of "behaviour" you were referring to?

I accept responsibility for my decision to call keu's beliefs crazy talk, which was out of line. I don't believe that was the right decision. I think it was really stupid of me. I made a mistake.

I've already justified my other decisions you've mentioned there, and I can't believe we're still talking about this. If memory serves me well, it's been more than a month. I think any more discussion about the particulars of the keu incident is both irrelevant to the current discussion and old news.

syke wrote:

Well its depends on what branch of christianity your class yourself as. There are many christian churches with many different and radical views and most if not all have at least one large bone of contention with the others.

Then we can take the different temperature of christians, as we know there are some liberal chirstians in each particular flavourand then the more conservative turbo-christian types. The "Christianity Board" would seem to encompass all of these by name, yet in practice JH doesn't much seem to like those that deviate from his views. He has even appointed himself the judge of who is a christian and who isn't in another forum

Again syke, one must take a fair assessment of the evidence available.

I have plenty of friends who have a different beliefs than I do. To apply "in practice JH doesn't much seem to like those that deviate from his views" to my life would mean I'd have to not like my friends, which is pretty ridiculous.

But I'll assume that this is a case of loose phrasing. I've noticed you've used a lot of loose phrases in your arguments, which I believe is dangerous given how volatile the situation is at the moment.

I've proven to be willing to debate Christian theology with people who disagree with me. Heck, I've done so with you! The fact that I don't particularly like you has nothing to do with what kind of faith you have, though I feel like I have to point out right now that I've certainly tried my best not to let any personal dislike get in the way of my decisions as mod.

The only incident I can think of where I have been intolerant of other people's religious beliefs, and have taken a modding decision in line with that, is the case of keu. I have repeatedly apologised for that decision, and admitted that it was stupid.

I'm quite tired of these "censorship" and "oppression" complaints. If they were true, then syke and Yoda would be banned, and their questioning of tenants of Christianity deleted. This has not happened. This is not an accurate reflection of reality. What happened with keu is the exception, and not the rule.

syke wrote:

If he goes private, he can discuss his branch of christianity without the need to interact with the people who might ask questions.

Syke, you are implying things that you cannot possibly have enough evidence to support.

syke wrote:

Misrepresenting a chain of events for personal appearance by deleting posts in inexcusable. He did the same to The Corinthian which prompted this thread (as I am subscribed to the thread I actually saw TC's post).

You're making claims as to my motive. This did not motivate my decision.

The fact that we may disagree on something does not mean that I am lying by purposely misrepresenting a chain of events. From what I can tell, you seem to be confusing the two an awful lot.

syke wrote:

(B) continued on in the same manner afterwards.

True remorse implies a willingness to change.

Where have I acted similarly to how I acted towards Keu?

Syke, you can't really characterise any of my modding decisions since the abusive "crazy talk" line as being in a similar vein. You attempt to do so, which I think is plain wrong.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

You had plenty of time to respond to PM's and do all sorts of stuff but no time to respond to comments or replies that outwit you.

It would appear that you have a different set of priorities than I do, as to how to aportion ones time. This does not imply much else, but you are inferring a great deal from it.

syke wrote:

I suspect, that your sympathy card is to detract from the real scenario which is basically that you don't want posts on the board highlighting your mistakes or inability to argue a point so you remove them.

Well, you are wrong. I'm not likely to convince you of this... you seem to have made up your mind already.

But it's certainly true that I do not consider a thread on the Christianity board discussing a certain topic to be the right place to criticise my modding decisions. To permit that would be allow the thread to spiral completely off topic, and more than likely deny those who wish to contribute to the original topic a fair chance to do so.

This is not to in any way imply that I put myself above questioning. The places to criticise my decisions as mod are on this forum, via PMs to me or by talking directly to the admins. You should just go through the proper channels. As I've told you this at least once in the past, I know you are aware of this stance.

syke wrote:

This is abusing your moderating for your own personal reasons, which is why we have threads like this and the previous ones over the keu incident where about 20 individuals condemned your actions.

Dude, I was one of them.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Now syke, one must at least take a fair assessment of the evidence presented. I simply said that my time available to boards, over the past four weeks, was very little; and that this in turn led me to not having enough time as a regular poster to always catch up with past commitments as fast as others would have preferred.

I believe I said behaviour. Posting or not posting is "behaviour". Exactly whats your point?

I never once tried to shrug off responsibility for any of my decisions as mod due to time pressure or this other issue. I accept responsibility for my decisions, and until proven otherwise (by myself or others) I will believe they were the correct ones to make.

For a given value of proof eh?
From the outside of Justhalf's mind in your look like someone too proud to retract decisions until forced into a corner.

You're confusing two issues, syke. The first is a responsibility as a poster on the forum to follow through on commitments I have made. I believe I have fulfilled this responsibility, thought later than others may have wished. The second is a responsibility as mod to make the right decisions. Though I may be one person, my actions need to be considered in the capacity that I excercised them.

No you confused the issues, all I ever said was youre making excuses for your behaviour.

I'm assuming that, given the sentence "I suppose your personal life is the reason you called keu's beliefs crazy talk and refused out and out to remove the offensive remark, which, contributed nothing to the thread it was on except to belittle the poster?", that this is the sort of "behaviour" you were referring to?

No, I'm suggesting that you either admit to something or you don't. Your ongoing smokescreen at avoiding Yoda's and TC's points is pretty blatant. But it always seems to come down to excuses. Hold up your hand once or twice.

I accept responsibility for my decision to call keu's beliefs crazy talk, which was out of line. I don't believe that was the right decision. I think it was really stupid of me. I made a mistake.

Which you never, afaik, rectified. Is the comment still there?

I've already justified my other decisions you've mentioned there, and I can't believe we're still talking about this. If memory serves me well, it's been more than a month. I think any more discussion about the particulars of the keu incident is both irrelevant to the current discussion and old news.

It doesn't change the fact you haven't learned anything from those mistakes.

I have plenty of friends who have a different beliefs than I do. To apply "in practice JH doesn't much seem to like those that deviate from his views" to my life would mean I'd have to not like my friends, which is pretty ridiculous.

Ah pedantry, the last refuge of the scoundrel

But I'll assume that this is a case of loose phrasing. I've noticed you've used a lot of loose phrases in your arguments, which I believe is dangerous given how volatile the situation is at the moment.

Do I? I guess its better than misdirection and avoiding the issues.

I've proven to be willing to debate Christian theology with people who disagree with me. Heck, I've done so with you! The fact that I don't particularly like you has nothing to do with what kind of faith you have, though I feel like I have to point out right now that I've certainly tried my best not to let any personal dislike get in the way of my decisions as mod.

Which is why people like Neuro and Excelsior get away with off topic posts and insults to me while others get psts deleted on a whim? Come off it, who are you trying to fool?

I'm quite tired of these "censorship" and "oppression" complaints. If they were true, then syke and Yoda would be banned, and their questioning of tenants of Christianity deleted. This has not happened. This is not an accurate reflection of reality. What happened with keu is the exception, and not the rule.

Well hopefully it won't be an issue anymore.

Syke, you are implying things that you cannot possibly have enough evidence to support.

You're making claims as to my motive. This did not motivate my decision.

The fact that we may disagree on something does not mean that I am lying by purposely misrepresenting a chain of events. From what I can tell, you seem to be confusing the two an awful lot.

You have yet to show me wher eI insulted excelsior. Or acknowledged the fact you were wrong about him insulting me. You deleted my post asking to point it out and claimed I was entering into a discussion on the matter. I think its a pretty obvious thing to point out where someone has erred. Thus you left the thread a mis-representation of events.

Same with TC's you deleted a post because it didn't contribute. Why then did you not only leave Neuro's but entered into a dreaded numerous post "off topic discussion" on validating her post on the grounds of your personal knowledge of her.

Impartial modding you say?

Where have I acted similarly to how I acted towards Keu?

Through corrupt modding

Syke, you can't really characterise any of my modding decisions since the abusive "crazy talk" line as being in a similar vein. You attempt to do so, which I think is plain wrong.

I think I just did.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

But it's certainly true that I do not consider a thread on the Christianity board discussing a certain topic to be the right place to criticise my modding decisions. To permit that would be allow the thread to spiral completely off topic, and more than likely deny those who wish to contribute to the original topic a fair chance to do so.

The post of mine you deleted explicity stated that I wasn't questioning your modding decision but merely asked you to point out the insulting comment you accused me of for my own knowledge.

You have thus far refused to do so.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Same with TC's you deleted a post because it didn't contribute. Why then did you not only leave Neuro's but entered into a dreaded numerous post "off topic discussion" on validating her post on the grounds of your personal knowledge of her.

Yes, by the time I noticed it it was too late; It was a mistake on my part to try and discuss Neuro's post and your interpretation of it (which I still think was leaping to an unsupportable position). I've mentioned this already.

On realising this, I didn't delete the off-topic discussion in it's entirety precisely to avoid crap like what we're getting into here right now. Maybe that was a bad decision.

TCs post had not yet generated a discussion, and I thought it only prudent to act at the time.

I never thought I'd have to justify every action and inaction I've ever taken as mod on Boards to any person who asks. You're asking too much. Quite frankly this is not a criminal trial and the consequences are relatively unimportant. You seem to assign a higher importance to your current actions than I do to defending my good name against any false charge made here by persons that have not the evidence to come to their conclusions.

syke wrote:

JustHalf wrote:

Where have I acted similarly to how I acted towards Keu?

Through corrupt modding

Syke, I ask you where and you tell me your idea of how. I ask for specifics and am provided only with vagueness. I'm not willing to argue with someone who behaves this way. It's dishonest, and makes me question your motivation. Why do assign so much importance to your current task, much more than I assign to my own defence?

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

Are you claiming I'm lying?

I am simply pointing out that there is at least one inconsistency in your version of events. I’ve not proffered an opinion as to how those inconsistencies got there.

Do you think I only posted the follow-up to spite you? Do you think I consider you that important?

Again, as with your use of sidestepping tactics, I can only make observations, however I would doubt that I would be at centre of your motivations. Since you asked though, a deep-rooted need to validate your ego as a result of low self-esteem would probably be a more likely explanation.

Nonetheless, the childish bickering that we are at this stage stooping to is not really what I had in mind when I started this thread. The issue remains that the Christianity board is simply not open to free debate - I believe there have been enough examples of this put forward as well as other posters corroborating this view. If the board is meant to preach the teachings of a particular denomination then it should be clearly labelled. Otherwise it is inappropriate that differing views and interpretations should be branded as heretical or crazy talk.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Yes, by the time I noticed it it was too late; It was a mistake on my part to try and discuss Neuro's post and your interpretation of it (which I still think was leaping to an unsupportable position). I've mentioned this already.

On realising this, I didn't delete the off-topic discussion in it's entirety precisely to avoid crap like what we're getting into here right now. Maybe that was a bad decision.

TCs post had not yet generated a discussion, and I thought it only prudent to act at the time.

Go back and look at the thread on Neuro's post. I made a comment about it in a post primarily following up Yodas. Then Yoda posted without reference to it, then you brought up the discussion of of it.

Thats when you noticed it, thats when you could have acted. But nope. Doublestandards boy to the rescue!!!!

Syke, I ask you where and you tell me your idea of how. I ask for specifics and am provided only with vagueness. I'm not willing to argue with someone who behaves this way. It's dishonest, and makes me question your motivation. Why do assign so much importance to your current task, much more than I assign to my own defence?

I notice your a great man for asking people to follow up their points but not so big on doing so yourself, in fact you're one of the best people around at diverting from questions put to you...which is how this thread started....

GuanYin

The Corinthian wrote:

I am simply pointing out that there is at least one inconsistency in your version of events. I’ve not proffered an opinion as to how those inconsistencies got there.

Again, as with your use of sidestepping tactics, I can only make observations, however I would doubt that I would be at centre of your motivations. Since you asked though, a deep-rooted need to validate your ego as a result of low self-esteem would probably be a more likely explanation.

Nonetheless, the childish bickering that we are at this stage stooping to is not really what I had in mind when I started this thread. The issue remains that the Christianity board is simply not open to free debate - I believe there have been enough examples of this put forward as well as other posters corroborating this view. If the board is meant to preach the teachings of a particular denomination then it should be clearly labelled. Otherwise it is inappropriate that differing views and interpretations should be branded as heretical or crazy talk.

You're right enough of the bickering. As Justhalf has deemed fit to step down as mod its all immaterial anyway, hopefully the new guise of christianity will be a more open place to others views.


But Justhalf, if you do wish to get around to showing me exactly where I was being insulting and how it superceeds excelsiors admission, I'm happy to entertain the discussion by PM, I doubtits likely you'll construct anything that will hold scrutiny, but I live in hope.

Hobart

ecksor wrote:

In that case, the remaining confusion is why you are singling out roman catholicism. I haven't been to the forum to have a good look but the impression I get is that the groups of posters that people are having problems with are not roman catholic, even if the offending discussions are regarding roman catholicism. Which group are you proposing to segregate exactly?

Because the moderator seems to be to me to be a RC and his/her views seem to be the only ones allowed to be discussed fully, the susequent discussion on this thread would seem to back this up.

Your missing the point about the "group of posters", as you put it, my point is not in reference to them, more in reference to the moderation.IMO most posters seem to be looking for an avenue to express their opinion of what catholisism means to them, not what a christian moderator deems should be relevant to them.

Faith, by it's nature and definition, is a very personal thing, not something that should be labbeled right, wrong or irrelevant, but absorbed, analysed and questioned. IMO this moderator is enforcing his views on what aspects of peoples faith are relevant.

I have previously made my point on TC's and syke's comments and feel no need to reguritate them.

However I do feel that one point does need re-raising. That is the point of JH's labelling of keu's views as "crazy talk". While the mod has apologised for his actions, and I believe that the apology is genuine, it does give a very ugly insight into the type of thinking this moderator is capable off.

To label anybodies believes, as JH has. is a gross error and one which the moderator has not gone far enough to correct. It also strikes me as quite ironic that it was probably something jesus christ heard as he was climbing calvary.

To finish, I have also found his/her moderation to be biased in the extreme. It seems to me, and by evidence of this thread and other threads many others, that he favors those who share his believes and shuns and punishes those whom he considers a threat, or whom he simply does not like.

Victor

How much of what syke posts on Christianity is (a) genuine (b) light to heavy trolling (c) disruptive behavior (the williamgrogan offence)?

Imposter

Hobart wrote:

It seems to me, and by evidence of this thread and other threads many others, that he favors those who share his believes and shuns and punishes those whom he considers a threat, or whom he simply does not like.

Isn't that the purpose of religion?

/I'll get my coat.