Forum guidelines - polite reminder....

Post Reply New Topic

I find your hate speech toward christians disturbing. You don't have to be religous to do any of these things.
You are also using the old testement to argue against christians there has been a thread about christians following old law.
I think a new rule is in order. If you are going to argue with someone, please back up your statements with logical reasoning. It's hard to debate someone who doesn't give logic in their arguements.

I am very very very sorry about the doulbe post, but I must say, congratulations for proving Paula's point.

Hi, you are demonstrating the manipulative technique of accusing people of your own bad behavior. i.e. the hate speech is in the christian bible (it says that homosexuals are an abomination and should be killed, see Lev 18:22, 20:13), and you are christian, and you are accusing me of hate speech. Therefore you are accusing me of your own bad behavior.

I do not follow your logic at all. In fact, I don't think there is any logic in there. I was noting that you were doing the things you accused the bible of. Funny, isn't it?

I would also like to point to my last post. It seems that religous people can't get a thread in without it being immeditly attacked. I think this has to stop.

No, I was merely listing in a factual manner how the forum rules prohibit some of the things expressed in the christian bible, and therefore Paula may be correct in saying that the forum rules are aimed at religious people.

If what I post was as hostile as what you post, I would be banned from this website. I've seen it done. You post like this to other people who posts threads you would be banned. Noone can post anything remotely spiritual without you being hostile towards them. Just as we have the right to post....yeah I get.....so do you. But don't you think you have better things to do with your anger? Or is your soul purpose for being at WP is to bash Christians? I don't know whats been done to you in the past to make you wanna hate us so much. For that I am truely sorry. But honestly, you shouldn't get all up in arms over us, we aren't going to go away. But I guess as long as the monitors are ok with it, no matter what we post, we will be getting a hassle from you. Personally I don't see why you bother to read our post. I don't read yours. No reason, but then again, I don't look to pick fights with anyone.

I am merely stating my opinion, my viewpoint, same as you are doing. You state your opinion. I state my opinion. The difference is that apparently you wish to have my opinion censored and banned simply because you disagree with it and dislike it. I am not trying to censor your opinion.

People have a right to express their disagreement with things you say. They even have a right to criticise points you make. What sort of society would we have if no-one was allowed to criticise a point? If everyone was forced to agree with everything or be silent?

BTW, religion is not spirituality. Those are 2 entirely different topics. Religion is a branch of politics, and spirituality is something else.

No enp, we would like your opinion censored and banned because it come of as hostile. Reading your posts, I can feel your hate. You also come into a formerly peaceful thread, usual a discussion amoug christians, and cause chaos, completely changing the topic. Frankly, I think it is scaring people away.

Thankyou Barracuda, thats exactly what I'm trying to say. A person can express their opinions without trying to pick a fight. They don't have to agree with me.

I like emp's posts. I might not always agree but I find that his posts are well reasoned. And I think it is admirable that he has the guts to say what he believes even if it draws criticism.

I assumed that this thread would include discussion about any of the three topics.... politics, philosophy and/or religion , right? Maybe religion should have it's own thread? Anyway, interesting thus far.

I can see why some may think Emp's posts come off as hostile. They can be construed (or misconstrued IMHO) in that way but I personally disagree.
I mean, sure, Emp's post can be a little harsh and in serious want of tact, but I don't think they count as hostility.
Anyway, if we could all communicate perfectly all the time, we wouldn't all be on WP, would we?
I don't think so.

Foreward; I am not a Christian. I do however respect some of their ideals.

Judge a man on his actions, not what he reads, thinks in private, etc. Words are actions, but the only hate speech I have seen on this topic so far has been aggressively anti-Christian. I don't see anyone who considers themselves a Christian defending the aggressiveness of the Old Testimate; most Christians have moved to embrace the New Testiment; which embraces peace, love, and acceptance. So rather than ranting against the bible as a whole, if you're going to attack Christians, attack what they do; not what they have read in the past and no longer adhere to. You might as well persicute all Germans alive today for Hitler's actions.

For people wishing to continue the debate...

Emp is long gone from the Politics, Philosophy and Religion forum. Regardless of the validity of his points and whether or not his way of making them was acceptable, the issue is now moot.

Actually you have no evidence of Barracuda's hatespeech (you specifically say "your own bad behaviour"). As the Christian Old Testament is also the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, or law, prophets and writings) you could as easily make assumptions about both Jews and Christians. For that matter isolated passages in the Qur'an could be used to slander all Muslims.

Admittedly you might be able to raise a legitimate question for evangelical Christians, fundamentalist Muslims and some orthodox Jews as to why if the Scriptures are the Word of God some of this matter is included. Equally liberals of the three faiths might be queried as to why, if some passages are rejected, do they have a basis for accepting others. I am a Christian myself, so probably playing Devil's advocate here. I just think there may be the seeds of a valid argument here. But you commenced your initial post talking about religious people (there are no atheist xenophobes or homophobes?) and zoomed straight in on Christians. This does not actually provide an argument for why the hatespeech regulations should be directed solely at those holding religious belief, let alone solely those of Christian belief (if indeed that is the case as was previously alleged, which I am not certain is the case).

Also, this is politics, philosophy and religion. Plenty of potential grounds for hatespeech in all three (well philosophy might be a little harder, but it can be done). Basically the regulations seem sound if courteous rational discourse still allowing dissent is encouraged.

No hard feelings I hope.

Sorry I replied before reading the later post about emp's departure. It was an interesting discussion while it lasted.