Religion and Spirituality Forum Rules

Well, at least the threads in the forum will be shorter. Which is a mercy.

Best wishes Stumps, you may well need them.

Stumps,

I’m posting a reply to you, here, partially following your wish of not to comment in that thread.
However, since you posted in the forum and not via PM, I’m posting in forum, too, this time.

I’d recommend acting according to what you suggest to others.
I mean, if you wanted to keep the thread clean and encourage the use of PM, probably you could have used PM, by yourself.

Fisr, let me refresh your memory.

Now, telling someone “get a life” is pretty much same thing as treating the person as “lifeless”. Since “having a life” is suggested as something desirable, A+O is treating the person to be in less than desirable state. I think it is a belittlement of the life of the person, and the life of a person includes/made-of her/his beliefs.

And was it “respectful” comment?
I don’t think so.

However, if you still believe firmly that you welcome and stand by the type of comment A+O made, we can respect your wish, too.

pfft

get logic

get heart

join your tongues
and so on.

I’m not so sure if you want to fill religious section with such comment, though.

Respect for:
* any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind, including atheism
* religious leaders

You over-looked the following section in that quote Nah:

Does this apply even to me to my own beliefs? Cause I personally think they’re pretty rediculous, and often want to share that fact… :laughing: (…can I laugh at myself??)

Happy to see your moderation in my life, Stumps, your honour! :smiley:

Nah, your posts are without malice, as far as I’ve seen, so I doubt you’ll have to worry about being accused of such sins as ‘slander’. Although, most of us are guilty of hypocrisy if you search back far enough through our posts (or our lives). IMO, since The Stumps has volunteered, he deserves a chance in his new role, if only to see if he proves to be overly authoritarian – as the OP might well be construed by some – or if he can actually moderate by leaving that part of himself out of the process, to the extent that’s possible. I think he’s capable of it, with some effort. And I think he’s probably a hard worker.

Personally, I dislike being a moderator for that reason. I view it as a higher calling of sorts, so it causes me to try to curb my nature just so that I don’t push the edges too much, which is something that I find too psychologically taxing! (This isn’t the way of all moderators, I know, but it’s been my approach.) I imagine authoritarians don’t have to struggle as much with the edge-pushing business, of course. Maybe their challenge is more along the lines of dealing with ambiguity.

That wouldn’t really be disrespectful now would it?
If you want to poke at yourself, then by all means, go for it, it just means you have opened the door for responses on your statements of ridiculousness since you voice that you aren’t considering it something to respect yourself.

The rules are there for the obvious, which folks seem to be trying to sway around; whereby someone simply wishes to discuss a topic of religion and finds their personal belief’s ridiculed and ostracized.

The forum for religion is not to make fun of religion; that is the point.
The forum for religion is to discuss religion with quality conversation beneficial to the discourse on religion.

That which the rules describe help keep this basic premise the focus instead of letting the forum become a, “pick your religion to make fun of” forum.

You overlooked the part of my post that already addressed the point. :slight_smile:

It wasn’t for my posts. :slight_smile:

Well, it sounds as if you are saying TheStumps is also hypocrite but let’s give him a chance. :smiley:

I think I’m giving him a chance to hear different opinions/suggestions. Although I know some people would prefer to stay silent and to watch for a while, I prefer to say when I feel like doing so.

Well, I gave my opinion and suggestions, but I know he’s gonna do what he wants/feels like, and basically I’m fine with that.

Good to hear.

Having recently become a Nietzsche-tard, I’m interested to know how would his sort of criticism of religion fairs under the new rules.

He repeatedly states that religion and Christianity in particular is contemptible.
His work is nothing if not aggressive.
His words about the apostles are anything but kind, especially with regard to Paul.

You can still have a meaty debate and remain respectful of others, you know - what is so hard to understand about being respectful…? :confusion-shrug:

There’s a train of thought that says you can’t separate the philosophical argument from the philosopher, and that it reflects bad upon the argument when you show that the arguer is weak or lacking in some way. I’m just asking whether it is okay if I quote Nietzsche when he talks about religious figures, or about religion, or about religious people. And more importantly, can I argue in favor of any such points? Can I, for example, defend Nietzsche’s ideas about Paul, or would that be against the rules since Paul is a religious figure and what I would be defending can be viewed as slander? Can I defend his ideas about people who have ‘theological blood running through their veins’ given that the main point leveled against them is that they are contemptible, i.e., lowly, or low worth? I think these are fair questions, and the issue is bound to come up given the popularity of Nietzsche.

If Nietzsche were to post in this Religion forum, I would hold him to the same standards.
Luckily, Nietzsche wrote books instead of talking on Forums so he didn’t have to be moderated by a forum admin.

What would you do to someone who did both?

Hold them to the same standard.

I don’t understand what you mean exactly…are you saying that arguing in the manner of Nietzsche, or maintaining and defending the same propositions as Nietzsche did is against the rules in the religion forum now?

He would be held to the same rules.

Yikes! I’m just going to assume you’re saying he and anyone who argues in the manner in which he did, and in favor of what he did would be breaking the rules.

The rules are very few; they are fairly straightforward; I am a pretty fair fellow; and I doubt these rules will cause quality discussions any problems.

I’m sure you’re fair, but your responses to me are not exactly “straightforward”. Your answer to my question as to how the new rules would handle the issue I raised is that the rules would handle them. And I’m pretty that comment about quality is a thinly veiled jab at me.