Banned from Christianity

Gareth37

Hi,

I am looking to confirmation as to why I was banned from Chrisianity.

I thought that I made a very important post in relation to the "mark of the beast" or 666. I stated that my interpretation may be flawed and opologised if anyone would be offended etc.

However, this morning I was amazed to find that I was banned for making the post and the thread closed. This is a very common discussion amongst Christians and interesting I think too. I was looking for feedback on my interpretation but the thread was locked. I cannot understand why this is?

Gordon

You have been speaking with Asiaprod via pm haven't you?

Beruthiel

Gareth37 wrote: »

I cannot understand why this is?

Asiaprod wrote:

Gareth, we have been very patient with you in this forum. You have been warned both in forum and via PM to stop the nonsense. You managed to get yourself banned from A&A, now this is the final straw. Its people like you who in fact do more damage to religion and to those that do follow this faith. In respect to those individual you are banned for 1 week while I consult with the other mods how to proceed with you.

The above and the fact that he has talked to you via PM would suggest that it has been explained to you already and I fail to see how a thread in Feedback will cast any further light on it.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

Stop forcing your twisted old testament views on other people.

6th

I have no problem with his views but I have a problem with 2 things:

• Pushing those views on people
• Gareth being singled out as a Boards user and ridiculed by other posters

seamus

6th wrote: »

• Gareth being singled out as a Boards user and ridiculed by other posters

Gareth has singled himself out.

Much in the same way that you did/have done, but in an entirely different context.

Dudess

6th, Gareth has told people they're the antichrist (how many antichrists are there?) Do you expect people not to have a go at him after that?

Rev Hellfire

I think he was just a little enthusiastic in his posting, certainly his views on the Christianity forum seemed no more extreme in my view to those of the 'regulars'.

That said if he received a PM from the moderators he should have taken that into account and altered his actions to match.

6th

seamus wrote: »

Gareth has singled himself out.

Much in the same way that you did/have done, but in an entirely different context.

True, but seeing someone (no matter how extreme) being singled out in forums with threads about them, mocking them kinda shows the bad sides of Boards. I've had it happen to me but the nature of my character and my experience on here means that I can take it and that I know when its meant in a semi-friendly way.

I dont agree with Gareth but peoples responses to him highlight deeper issues within Boards.

6th

Dudess wrote: »

6th, Gareth has told people they're the antichrist (how many antichrists are there?) Do you expect people not to have a go at him after that?

In cases like that he should be moderated by the appropriate person, its not a green light to the community to go after him.

javaboy

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think he was just a little enthusiastic in his posting, certainly his views on the Christianity forum seemed no more extreme in my view to those of the 'regulars'.

That said if he received a PM from the moderators he should have taken that into account and altered his actions to match.

AFAIK extreme views are ok on the forums and I don't think anyone's going to get banned for those alone. IIRC the post Gareth got banned for drew some particularly tenuous links between credit card designs and the number 666. He then went on to say he wasn't looking forward to the replies.

Having read a lot of his posts in A&A and Christianity, it's hard to know if he's trolling or serious. All I know is that if you get banned from both, you're probably doing something wrong.

Hobbes

Actually forum says he is banned for 1 month.

Surprised he isn't banned from Atheist forum.

Handsome Bob

6th wrote: »

True, but seeing someone (no matter how extreme) being singled out in forums with threads about them, mocking them kinda shows the bad sides of Boards. I've had it happen to me but the nature of my character and my experience on here means that I can take it and that I know when its meant in a semi-friendly way.

I dont agree with Gareth but peoples responses to him highlight deeper issues within Boards.

While I do agree with what you are saying, Asiaprod hit the nail on the head when he said that

It's people like you who in fact do more damage to religion and to those that do follow this faith.

It got all too much with the multiple threads in A&A and I, even though I'm agnostic, despaired at some of the things he was saying because it gave certain posters free reign to spit their generalizations out about religion.

javaboy

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually forum says he is banned for 1 month.

Surprised he isn't banned from Atheist forum.

I thought he was? He started a very trollish thread about the average atheist being a 14/15 year old boy trying to rebel.

6th

LZ5by5 wrote: »

While I do agree with what you are saying, Asiaprod hit the nail on the head when he said that



It got all too much with the multiple threads in A&A and I, even though I'm agnostic, despaired at some of the things he was saying because it gave certain posters free reign to spit their generalizations out about religion.

They are his beliefs and he is intitled to them Surely based on what you say its the people making the generalizations based on what one posters says that are the problem?

Hobbes

javaboy wrote: »

I thought he was? He started a very trollish thread about the average atheist being a 14/15 year old boy trying to rebel.

With the occasional girl thrown in. Funny thread.

Handsome Bob

6th wrote: »

They are his beliefs and he is intitled to them Surely based on what you say its the people making the generalizations based on what one posters says that are the problem?

That is a fair conclusion.

Gareth is entitled to his beliefs, and that's something I feel strongly about, but with threads such as "average age of atheist 14 or 15" you can't help but think that he is being naive if he thinks it will fly insulting people no?

AckwelFoley

It only 1 month and only a forum.

Ive a life time ban from my local church...

6th

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That is a fair conclusion.

Gareth is entitled to his beliefs, and that's something I feel strongly about, but with threads such as "average age of atheist 14 or 15" you can't help but think that he is being naive if he thinks it will fly insulting people no?

No he should not be allowed to insult people and as I've said I've no problem with how he has been moderated. I suppose I am just defending him based on peoples reactions to him. Why, I dont know.

Nerin

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That is a fair conclusion.

Gareth is entitled to his beliefs, and that's something I feel strongly about, but with threads such as "average age of atheist 14 or 15" you can't help but think that he is being naive if he thinks it will fly insulting people no?

Hmmmm. I thought in the beginning he was a troll. Now i think he is genuine,but that thread was trolling.
Hes been warned enough,he deserves the ban. But i agree with 6th on the fact threads singling out a user shouldn't be allowed.

seamus

6th, you're going to have to show me what you're talking about. I've no problem with people mentioning someone's name in passing when a topic that they are "zealous" about is being discussed; For example in a thread about thumb scanners, someone saying, "Oh I can't wait until run to the hills gets here". That's fine, because he's exposed himself as that kind of poster and opened himself up to it.

Obviously though, specifically starting threads to abuse or ridicule any poster is out of line.

Handsome Bob

6th wrote: »

No he should not be allowed to insult people and as I've said I've no problem with how he has been moderated. I suppose I am just defending him based on peoples reactions to him. Why, I dont know.

I hope this isn't taken as an insult by A&A but it's very much a pack mentality. If some of them smell blood, their prey is in for trouble. For me, I don't like seeing it.

Nerin wrote: »

Hmmmm. I thought in the beginning he was a troll. Now i think he is genuine,but that thread was trolling.
Hes been warned enough,he deserves the ban. But i agree with 6th on the fact threads singling out a user shouldn't be allowed.

I don't think he's a troll, based on his replies in my thread in Christianity. Gareth seems to have a willingness to defend his faith on a solid platform, going by what he said in that thread.

I agree with you and 6th on the singling out aspect.

6th

seamus wrote: »

6th, you're going to have to show me what you're talking about. I've no problem with people mentioning someone's name in passing when a topic that they are "zealous" about is being discussed; For example in a thread about thumb scanners, someone saying, "Oh I can't wait until run to the hills gets here". That's fine, because he's exposed himself as that kind of poster and opened himself up to it.

Obviously though, specifically starting threads to abuse or ridicule any poster is out of line.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425054

Obviously mods are dealing with it as it happens but I dont see anyone being told its wrong to single another poster out, its just inferred by the locking and deleting of threads.

seamus

6th wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425054

Obviously mods are dealing with it as it happens but I dont see anyone being told its wrong to single another poster out, its just inferred by the locking and deleting of threads.

In that case, the poster had a genuine suggestion. The aim wasn't to single out and bully a particular poster, he was just used as the current topical example. Bad form perhaps, but not unfair.

That OP in particular didn't ridicule Gareth's beliefs. It ridiculed his style of "debate". Which perhaps isn't so worthy of defence.

The thread was locked because it turned into what you say, but what do you do? Ban them all? Locking the thread implies that the thread should not continue.

CuLT

snyper wrote: »

It only 1 month and only a forum.

Ive a life time ban from my local church...

To say nothing about your local daycare...

6th

Ok I'm gonna stop defending Gareth but thats not exactly what I am doing. We've seen plenty of posters on here who stand out and we've seen them become easy targets ..... mostly by their own doing.

Gareth, when your ban is up try to listen as well as speak. You might feel that you are in some way doing the words work by posting what you do but remember, the lord works in mysterious ways. Maybe you ended up here at Boards.ie not to teach but to learn? Look at the community as a whole, look at how the community works ... love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek.

toiletduck

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I don't think he's a troll, based on his replies in my thread in Christianity. Gareth seems to have a willingness to defend his faith on a solid platform, going by what he said in that thread.

On most of the threads he started he didn't defend anything, merely stated a view, and then wouldn't really even engage with what people were saying (particularly true of his posts on A&A). Hard not to think the worst of someone when they do that.

Handsome Bob

toiletduck wrote: »

On most of the threads he started he didn't defend anything, merely stated a view, and then wouldn't really even engage with what people were saying (particularly true of his posts on A&A). Hard not to think the worst of someone when they do that.

Let me rephrase; I started a thread called "Christian Apologetics" and in that thread he indicated that he was interested in reading up on the subject. But before that thread, I agree with what you said in regards to Gareth not engaging people.

_blank_

Has a user been banned here for not backing up his arguments?

Nerin

Des wrote: »

Has a user been banned here for not backing up his arguments?

He was warned about pushing his beliefs on others in pi and spirituality.

Fanny Cradock

Gareth, I believe that the mods of the Christianity forum have been more than patient with you. On a couple of occasions you have been politely asked to tone it down and change the record. You chose to ignore these requests.

I would encourage you to focus on the positive aspects of your faith. Most of the Christians I know speak of the positive effect that Jesus has in their lives today. All these things you post about don't really factor in their day to day faith or their message to others. Take your time off (the ban isn't that long) and come back to the forum refreshed.

Winters

You bunch of religious nutjobs.

R0ot

I respect people and the beliefs they have until they step over the line and stop expressing their opinions and try and state them as facts instead.

Its like the PI thread that had the girl posting about how you didn't need any form of protection during sex if you don't want to get pregnant (found it), now most people would read it and go "idiot" but there's always those few naive people that might take it as truth, the same kind of people that read wikipedia and instantly believe its all 100% fact!

Karl Hungus

You know, this ban doesn't sit too well with me. Nor does the whole "He singles himself out" or "He opens himself up for abuse" thing either. Are we really justifying abuse because someone is an easy target? Because that's what it sounds like to me, and it shouldn't matter if a person singles themselves out through their beliefs, abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.

And honestly, what the hell was Gareth banned for? For discussing his religion? Having read the thread in question, it seems perfectly valid and on topic; the ideas of 'worshipping money' being evil is ingrained in a very many religions. It's theorising upon christian doctrine. Sure, people think it's conspiracy theory nonsense, but that's besides the point, because the Christianity forum is there to provide discussion of this kind.

What I find even more disturbing is to tell Gareth to focus opun "More positive" aspects of his religion. This exemplifies something I particularly loathe about modern religion and it's followers; the picking and chosing of certain aspects of religious doctrine, and dismissing the rest. Like it or not, satan and the antichrist are part of the christian faith, and if you're going to ban people for discussing that, you might as well just ban everyone else, because what the hell is the forum for? It's like me banning someone from the music section for liking bands a,b and c, and telling them to come back when they like bands x, y and z. The forum should be more than just "Hey, isn't Jesus great? Praise the lord!" "+1"

I'm feeling as if this ban is one motivated by a comfort that Gareth has disturbed:

Asiaprod wrote:

Its people like you who in fact do more damage to religion and to those that do follow this faith.

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

seamus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Nor does the whole "He singles himself out" or "He opens himself up for abuse" thing either. Are we really justifying abuse because someone is an easy target? Because that's what it sounds like to me, and it shouldn't matter if a person singles themselves out through their beliefs, abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.

if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

You get where this is going.

Fanny Cradock

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

Asiaprod is an Buddhist. I don't see that he has any pro-Christian agenda in the matter.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What I find even more disturbing is to tell Gareth to focus opun "More positive" aspects of his religion. This exemplifies something I particularly loathe about modern religion and it's followers; the picking and chosing of certain aspects of religious doctrine, and dismissing the rest. Like it or not, satan and the antichrist are part of the christian faith, and if you're going to ban people for discussing that, you might as well just ban everyone else, because what the hell is the forum for? It's like me banning someone from the music section for liking bands a,b and c, and telling them to come back when they like bands x, y and z. The forum should be more than just "Hey, isn't Jesus great? Praise the lord!" "+1"

I would suggest that that the 'Buddy Christ' image that you so disdain - dismissing it as some new appendage to Christianity - has always been integral to the faith. If you read the Gospels this is exactly the relationship that Jesus inspires.

I have no problem with people discussing Satan - it's not the case of us trying to erase Satan and clean up Christianity (and you would have to ask yourself why a non-Christian would be interested in doing that). However, when the majority of posts - no matter the topic - have this reoccurring theme, and private intervention from the mods has been consistently ignored, it seems that a ban is justified.

--amadeus--

I wouldn't support the ban on the grounds of the content he posted in Christianity. It was mainly on topic (if a little from the lunatic fringe).

However I do understand that the ban is more for his posting style. His threads tended to be:

- G37 - "Satan is coming"
- Everyone - "on what basis?"
- G37 with fingers in ears - "SATAN IS COMING"

- repeat until people stop biting then start a new thread

If he learns to read as well as to write I am sure he'll be welcomed back to the various forums. If he was left unchecked he would have killed the forum off - you can't have a conversation if every thread is hijacked by a troll.

Black Swan

Gareth37 wrote: »

I was banned from Chrisianity.

Excommunicated?

faceman

Excellent post by Karl.

A user should be banned for breaking the rules, not for airing his or her viewpoints, however off the wall they might seem to other people.

GuanYin

Dudess wrote: »

6th, Gareth has told people they're the antichrist (how many antichrists are there?) Do you expect people not to have a go at him after that?

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

javaboy

GuanYin wrote: »

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

You're not the antichrist. You're a very naughty well behaved boy girl!

oscarBravo

faceman wrote: »

A user should be banned for breaking the rules, not for airing his or her viewpoints, however off the wall they might seem to other people.

In Politics we have a rule against soapboxing: constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it. It's disruptive and annoying. Seems to me that's what we're dealing with here.

AnimalRights

GuanYin wrote: »

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

I think that was this guy tbh....

Karl Hungus

seamus wrote: »

The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

So? Where is it written that a person must respond to posts before starting a new thread? If people don't like his views, there's an ignore button. I don't see where he's broken any rules with his thread on the Christianity forum.

Fair enough, I'm not a poster on the forum, and I probably don't know the ins and outs. Oscar Bravo raises a good point about soapboxing. So I'm sure there's a lot I'm not privvy to, and how it effects the forum. But it just doesn't seem fair when someone is banned with no rules in place against that. The whole thing with the Celeb forum and JP Liz could be compared, and I think the mods did a fantastic job in the sense that they identified a problem, created rules to curb that problem, and then acted with warnings. It's all a bit too "Ban first and ask questions later."

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.

I did read the whole thread, it's just that it boils my blood to see someone exclaim that a person "Invites it upon themselves"... Sorry, it just brings out the rant in me.

Nevyn

He's not discussing he's preaching for the sole purpose of proselyting which he has admitted to which is against the charter, end of.

christianity charter wrote:

# Crazy fundamentalist bigotry will not be tolerated. Remember, God loves every one of his children.

Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.

He had been doing this over a number of fora and it is not acceptable.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

I second your views. There is a bit of a lynch mod mentality on this forum where someone can be singled out and ridiculed no matter what they say.

seamus wrote: »

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.
The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

You get where this is going.

What's wrong with starting a thread to stimulate a debate or discussion ? Is this void if you don't continue to post in the thread ?

Terry

You're banned from Christianity/
That explains the rantings in AH.

No more religious threads for you there.

You are not allowed to take your agenda to AH just because you have been banned from the forum it belongs in.

As for the banning itself, I can't comment on it because I haven't read the thread in question so I can't comment on it.

Just keep the religious stuff out of AH while you are still banned from Christianity.

Jokes about religion are accepted, but as a Christian, you shouldn't be doing that.

the_syco

Gareth37 wrote: »

I am looking to confirmation as to why I was banned from Chrisianity.

I actually forget why I was banned from there. All I remember about the forum is that if you disagree with any points, you'll most likely get banned.

gramlab

6th wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425054

Obviously mods are dealing with it as it happens but I dont see anyone being told its wrong to single another poster out, its just inferred by the locking and deleting of threads.

I started that thread. It was about how easy it is to troll in that forum, and the lack of response when questions that were asked in threads were answered without any acknowledgement from the people asking the questions. Probably shouldn't have mentioned/hinted at Gareth but his recent threads and posts highlighted my point. If any offence was taken I apologise.

Banning seems a bit strong to me, ignoring would have been my own personal choice. But he did get plenty of advice and warning from the relevant mods.

metrovelvet

You guys should really add a stipulation to all the religion charters that they are for prosletysing and any form of debate which negatively questions said religion will be shut down and the poster banned.

Secondly, there is no Satan forum, unless you count politics as one, nor is there a Judaism forum, so where else is someone supposed to get Old Testament about something?