ANNOUNCEMENT: New Infractions & Warning System

[GodNoel]

Hello, CF, NO i don't banned anyone to hell.

 

[AlbusBDumbledore]

You don't know Jesus, so don't guess what he is thinking. He wants to love everyone is something I know for sure.

 

[Amoranemix]

I am going to post some of my comments in foru.ms/t6400648-discussion-of-announcement-new-infractions-warning-system.html.

[FONT=&quot]

Why, oh why do the infractions have to be listed first thing on one's Homepage? There was a perfect place for it on the Control Panel page. Why this change? It looks atrocious, and detracts from the invitation to others to view a member's information.

[/FONT]You should wear your infractions with pride.

Yes, it is possible... it should be very more rare than a post which earns 2 infraction points. Remember, the RT has staff oversight, and admins will be keeping much closer watch than ever before.

Don’t user abbreviations that people may be unfamiliar with. RT = Reconciliation Team.
Who will be watching the RT and the admins ?

eirene : About the subsequent ban (aka permaban):
* does it take another 4 points to earn a permaban?
* if not, how many?
mnphysicist : 8 points are needed for a perma ban.
Points expire 6 months after they are issued. So, once could earn 3 points in the first 3 months, and then in month 9, they would expire and no longer count towards a perman ban.
That is not what the rules we are shown say.

eirene : What time period would be used for FSBs ? Will this also be at the discretion of the staff team?
mnphysicist : That is at the discretion of the team.
How does the team decide ?

Stormy : Staff are allowed to give a two week ban on members accounts as a cool down period. No warning or infraction will be given.
What is this?? Even if no rules are being broken?
Mnphysicist : The rules are very broad in scope, and staff has tremendous discretion in their application. So, a rule would need to be broken for a fsb to be issued. However, staff determines what if any rule is broken.
I disagree with staff having tremendous discretion in the application of the rules.

[FONT=&quot]

How can you go from a 1 month ban to a perma-ban, with no steps in between? That seems like going overboard. Shouldn't there be a 3-month ban, a 6-month ban, maybe then a perma-ban?

[/FONT]We wikied something similar in the banning protocol wiki, which is one of those wikis the Powers That Be did not think worth snapshotting.

It appears posts have been moved and/or deleted without following protocol.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The lesson to be learned from the New Infractions & Warning System is that if you don’t want to be permanently banned, don’t post any posts at all lest one of the staff members doesn’t like your denomination or your haircut. I just started posting again after leaving this message board for almost 8 months because a moderator who had an issue with me for reporting him for plagiarism turned my experience on this message board from one of Christian fellowship to a horrific nightmare. I appealed to an administrator for help and presented to him very extensive documentation of the facts involved but rather than help me, the administrator falsely accused me of a whole list of offenses, none of which I was guilty of, and cast at me a multitude of extremely hateful and malicious insults and gave me a warning!

I had made every effort in every one of my posts to obey every rule of this message board both in letter and spirit and very carefully read everyone of my posts at least three times before posting it in order to avoid even the remotest possibility that a moderator could find fault with it, but when a moderator hates a member for personal reasons and becomes vindictive against that member, and other moderators and administrators join in with the vindictive moderator, that member has no recourse but to quit posting. Fortunately, all but one of the of the moderators and the administrator who attacked me are no longer staff members, but with the New Infractions & Warning System I fear that I am even more susceptible to such maliciousness than I was before.

I very clearly understand that some members flagrantly and willfully break the rules and in doing so cause injury to other members and the message board as a whole, but I have personally witnessed what happens when a staff member goes after a member that he or she has a personal issue with that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of his posts. I have also personally witnessed on several occasions what can happen when a moderator of limited education and intelligence reads a post written by a highly educated individual in which the writer of the post found it necessary, for the sake of precision, to use complex syntax and sentence structure that was miles above the head of the moderator causing the moderator to radically misunderstand the post and wrongly interpret it to be inflammatory.

My field of study is translation theory and the problems involved in translating a piece of writing written in one language and culture so that persons of a very different and sometimes a highly diverse culture using another language can understand the concepts that original author was expressing in what he wrote. Therefore I am very much aware of the potential problems involved in expressing oneself on a message board where one’s intent may primarily be to reply to the writer of a specific message in a thread being read by members of diverse cultures and cognitive abilities and I make every effort to mitigate those problems. All of these efforts, however, are of no avail when heavy-handed moderators are given too much latitude and power in their use of the ax.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

With the exception of a few wicked control freaks (mods and Others) I think as a whole the site has improved, but is still very primitive in intellegent dealings of a fair nature.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Expecting Christian behavior from Christians?

It's not going to happen.

Case in point.

 

[No Swansong]

So we have a set of very ambiguous rules, forum specific suggestions with no teeth, a warning and infraction policy that can get a member permabanned in 4 posts and all of this is being judged and ruled upon by staff, some of whom have been proven to be inconsistent and unfair in the first place and others who supposedly don't have enough experience to make decisions that aren't overruled several times.

Our advocates against unfair treatment are staff and all of this is done in secret.

This doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster?

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Disaster? If it keeps unpleasantness off the front pages so that more ad space can be sold, then it will have done its job quite nicely.

 

[MrJim]

Disaster? If it keeps unpleasantness off the front pages so that more ad space can be sold, then it will have done its job quite nicely.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The lesson to be learned from the New Infractions & Warning System is that if you don’t want to be permanently banned, don’t post any posts at all lest one of the staff members doesn’t like your denomination or your haircut. I just started posting again after leaving this message board for almost 8 months because a moderator who had an issue with me for reporting him for plagiarism turned my experience on this message board from one of Christian fellowship to a horrific nightmare. I appealed to an administrator for help and presented to him very extensive documentation of the facts involved but rather than help me, the administrator falsely accused me of a whole list of offenses, none of which I was guilty of, and cast at me a multitude of extremely hateful and malicious insults and gave me a warning!

I had made every effort in every one of my posts to obey every rule of this message board both in letter and spirit and very carefully read everyone of my posts at least three times before posting it in order to avoid even the remotest possibility that a moderator could find fault with it, but when a moderator hates a member for personal reasons and becomes vindictive against that member, and other moderators and administrators join in with the vindictive moderator, that member has no recourse but to quit posting. Fortunately, all but one of the of the moderators and the administrator who attacked me are no longer staff members, but with the New Infractions & Warning System I fear that I am even more susceptible to such maliciousness than I was before.

I very clearly understand that some members flagrantly and willfully break the rules and in doing so cause injury to other members and the message board as a whole, but I have personally witnessed what happens when a staff member goes after a member that he or she has a personal issue with that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of his posts. I have also personally witnessed on several occasions what can happen when a moderator of limited education and intelligence reads a post written by a highly educated individual in which the writer of the post found it necessary, for the sake of precision, to use complex syntax and sentence structure that was miles above the head of the moderator causing the moderator to radically misunderstand the post and wrongly interpret it to be inflammatory.

My field of study is translation theory and the problems involved in translating a piece of writing written in one language and culture so that persons of a very different and sometimes a highly diverse culture using another language can understand the concepts that original author was expressing in what he wrote. Therefore I am very much aware of the potential problems involved in expressing oneself on a message board where one’s intent may primarily be to reply to the writer of a specific message in a thread being read by members of diverse cultures and cognitive abilities and I make every effort to mitigate those problems. All of these efforts, however, are of no avail when heavy-handed moderators are given too much latitude and power in their use of the ax.

That's a hair-raising story, Princeton Guy.

The new Reconciliation Team is supposed to protect against anything of this nature happening again. Unfortunately, their work is now hidden from our eyes, so I cannot tell you how they are fairing in this, nor can you confirm it firsthand. We do have the reputations of the team members to go on, and that alone is encouraging to a certain degree.

I sometimes participate in another message board that recently suffered a brouhaha. A number of members self-banned in protest. Eventually the board of directors published an apology in which they acknowledged that some of those who had self-banned were experts in their fields and could not be easily replaced, and that their failure to quickly solve the problem at hand had clearly put the goals of the site in jeopardy.

(If anyone cares for a link to the thread itself, please PM me.)

If this forum were to adopt any sort of lofty goal involving promoting, studying, discussing or debating Christianity, your expertise in translation theory would be invaluable. If you were to be driven off, it would be unlikely that we would be able to replace you. And this, along with the sense of loss that all who have come to know you would feel, would be a disaster for the site itself.

If the goal of this site is to provide eyeballs to ogle ads, then I have less hope. I worry about anyone who is not seen as a streamlined member of the most populous group.

Are my worries unfounded? I have no way of knowing.

 

[Beastt]

Case in point.

You might want to go back through the threads dealing with the changes from July of this year and count the number of times Christians proclaim that if they aren't treated as superior to others, allowed to persecute others and would actually have to share, it just wouldn't be a Christian site.

They said it, not I. I'm just working from the evidence they provided.

 

[Beastt]

The lesson to be learned from the New Infractions & Warning System is that if you don’t want to be permanently banned, don’t post any posts at all lest one of the staff members doesn’t like your denomination or your haircut. I just started posting again after leaving this message board for almost 8 months because a moderator who had an issue with me for reporting him for plagiarism turned my experience on this message board from one of Christian fellowship to a horrific nightmare. I appealed to an administrator for help and presented to him very extensive documentation of the facts involved but rather than help me, the administrator falsely accused me of a whole list of offenses, none of which I was guilty of, and cast at me a multitude of extremely hateful and malicious insults and gave me a warning!

I've had a few such experiences, though none quite so extreme as yours. My first months here were greeted by a guy who covered a forum of specific interest to me (something I've studied for 14-years). Many of those posting the con-side of the issue were ill-informed and ill-equipped to support their views so, as seems to be the habit of some, they turned to insults to fend off the thoroughly referenced material I provided in an attempt to fill them in on some information of which they were obviously unaware.

One of the moderators over that section demonstrated a severe emotional reaction to my ability to support my stance and his own inability to support his. So he used to force me to go change parts of my posts which were in no way even close to a violation of any of the rules. Some of the regulars there seemed to engage in some kind of a game with him. They'd post a few insults, I'd respond with well-referenced material, and then I'd get dinged and told I had to delete parts of my posts which were informative, not aimed at anyone, not insulting, not flaming, and in no other way, a violation of any of the forum rules.

I eventually pursued an appeal against the moderator's behavior and after several weeks and some very abrupt language directed toward me from his superiors, I was told that they really didn't see anything they could do. At that time you would be requested to edit your post and you weren't allowed to file an appeal until you had done so. If you won the appeal, your original content was already lost so they still got what they wanted. But the continual abuse from the moderator in question did finally stop.

Then I switched to a different section of the forum and began constantly receiving warnings and threats from one of the Administrators. She would point out a statement from one of my posts and proclaim that it violated a particular rule when anyone with half a day's practice reading legal statutes could clearly see that there was absolutely nothing even remotely resembling any kind of infraction. I tried to reason with her but it was obvious that she thought since she was an Administrator, anything she decided was true simply was true. One of her first assertions was that the statement "Nice ad hominem" constituted a violation of the rule prohibiting members from alleging rule violations by other members. Nowhere did my post say anything about rules, about violations or about anything else remotely connected to her assertion. Those three words were the only reference I made to him telling me that I was lacking intellectually. Of course she found that I was wrong and he'd done nothing wrong (despite a rule against insults). But I didn't want him to get in trouble. It was between he and I and I'm quite capable of continuing to debate on civil grounds even when an opponent has lost all civility. That's why to this day I've never submitted a report against anyone for anything (except the moderators mentioned here and those weren't "reports" they were appeals).

Then she started deleting my posts, usually with the same kind of bogus excuses and claims that I'd violated some rule. I was told that telling someone the Bible was a book was ridicule. I was told that pointing out that Jesus died 2,00 years ago to someone who kept talking about him as though he was alive was blasphemy.

After I'd filed a few complaints against her it became obvious to her that I was done just sitting there and taking her abuse so she started directing her newer moderators to take action against me so that she could claim to be innocent, (this was eventually verified by two of the moderators).

A few times she even deleted entire threads (one which was over 70-pages), and then claimed first that no such thing did or could ever happen, then that the thread in question was just too saturated with violations to be saved and finally that she was too short-staffed and they didn't have time to look through the whole thread to try to clean it up so they just blew it away. She was still an Administrator up until the time Erwin made the changes in July.

Her co-Administrator even tried to come to her rescue by saying that he was unfamiliar with the specific incident, but he could assure me that what I alleged happened didn't actually happen. Then she changed her story, and then changed it again. She even blew away a thread one time while I was posting in it. I submitted a post, found another comment to which I wanted to respond, and noted that she had entered the thread. I typed my response (about 2-minutes), and when I clicked Submit I received a message that the URL was wrong. After looking around a bit I found that the thread was gone.

She denied that too and continued to deny it even after she was demoted to a regular member.

I had made every effort in every one of my posts to obey every rule of this message board both in letter and spirit and very carefully read everyone of my posts at least three times before posting it in order to avoid even the remotest possibility that a moderator could find fault with it, but when a moderator hates a member for personal reasons and becomes vindictive against that member, and other moderators and administrators join in with the vindictive moderator, that member has no recourse but to quit posting. Fortunately, all but one of the of the moderators and the administrator who attacked me are no longer staff members, but with the New Infractions & Warning System I fear that I am even more susceptible to such maliciousness than I was before.

I went through pretty much the same thing where I would proofread every post several times, submit it and then proof-read it again and again, editing it numerous times to assure that nothing could be misinterpreted as any kind of violation.

In the end, if she wanted to claim there was a violation, she just did because she knew the corruption among staff ran all the way to some of the executives and she could do anything she wanted.

That's the way it will be again if things don't turn around pretty quickly. I've already had at least 3-posts deleted in the past few weeks and every one of them carried the same improperly applied claim of being off topic. In certain areas, if a staff member doesn't like what you wrote, it's automatically "off-topic". I'm keeping a list of the staff members doing this for when this finally does turn around. I don't know how long it will take, but it will eventually change. When it does, I'm submitting the list of staff members along with a list of their abuses and I'll be recommending that every person on it be made ineligible for staff positions for abuse of authority.

I very clearly understand that some members flagrantly and willfully break the rules and in doing so cause injury to other members and the message board as a whole...

I think I get what you're saying here but just for clarification, there isn't anything anyone can type on this board which will cause injury or harm to anyone else. That's something all staff members need to wrap themselves around before they ever decide to act on anything.

...but I have personally witnessed what happens when a staff member goes after a member that he or she has a personal issue with that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of his posts.

Several of us have, though most of us have been lucky enough not to suffer to the degree you have. That's something else staff members need to be very clear on; nothing members write is truly harmful but the actions of staff can very easily cause harm because it's not just words; its actions, demands and violations of basic human rights such as the right to present one's opinion or factual data. Sometimes I really don't understand where anyone gets the idea that they actually have anything close to the right to attempt to tell someone else what they can or can't say. The nerve and arrogance required for that is simply off the scale.

I have also personally witnessed on several occasions what can happen when a moderator of limited education and intelligence reads a post written by a highly educated individual in which the writer of the post found it necessary, for the sake of precision, to use complex syntax and sentence structure that was miles above the head of the moderator causing the moderator to radically misunderstand the post and wrongly interpret it to be inflammatory.

I'm glad you brought this up because this is a huge problem here. I can't tell you the number of times I've submitted a post and then been advised that the post violated a rule and upon seeking clarification, it becomes apparent that the moderator doesn't understand one of the words I've used and simply assumes it's something derogatory when it isn't. At that point you're pretty well stuck because, in my experience, they're already getting pretty defensive by that point and if you point out that the problem is their limited vocabulary -- no matter how you say it, it's not going to be pretty.

I would say that just off hand, about 50% of the messages/warnings/infractions I've received have demonstrated such a poor grasp of the written word as to bring their ability to perform as a staff member into serious question. Too many of them, and I want to be delicate here, simply can't put a sentence together so that it makes sense. And yet they strut around passing out violations like they were a Harvard grad with God's first-hand permission.

My field of study is translation theory and the problems involved in translating a piece of writing written in one language and culture so that persons of a very different and sometimes a highly diverse culture using another language can understand the concepts that original author was expressing in what he wrote. Therefore I am very much aware of the potential problems involved in expressing oneself on a message board where one’s intent may primarily be to reply to the writer of a specific message in a thread being read by members of diverse cultures and cognitive abilities and I make every effort to mitigate those problems. All of these efforts, however, are of no avail when heavy-handed moderators are given too much latitude and power in their use of the ax.

The answer is simple. Getting that simple answer implemented is the problem. Staff members need to be very clear that they are here for the membership. The membership is not here for them. Unfortunately, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

They should be fully and publicly answerable for anything and everything they do. (Partially because we don't really need them.) Anything less is simply a disaster building to a head.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Expecting Christian behavior from Christians?

It's not going to happen.

You might want to go back through the threads dealing with the changes from July of this year and count the number of times Christians proclaim that if they aren't treated as superior to others, allowed to persecute others and would actually have to share, it just wouldn't be a Christian site.

They said it, not I. I'm just working from the evidence they provided.

To what purpose does your generalizations aspire other than to put down a whole class of people? The stuff genicide is made of.

 

[Beastt]

To what purpose does your generalizations aspire other than to put down a whole class of people? The stuff genicide is made of.

Not every venomous snake will envenomate you with every bite. That doesn't make it sound advice to play carelessly with venomous snakes. The fact that 25% of bites from venomous snakes are "dry bites" doesn't change the fact that the other 75% result in envenomation. Am I putting down an entire class of reptile or simply working with the odds to promote the appropriate level of caution?

Whether or not either of us like it, the majority of Christians are elitists and consider the practice of bigotry to be their God-given right. I don't blame you for disliking that since it colors you with the same brush, even though you may be very different than that. But your efforts would be better spent attempting to change their behaviors than confronting me simply for observing their behaviors. Given the evidence and the stories here, you might want to start by joining those who are trying to penetrate Lee's closed ears.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not every venomous snake will envenomate you with every bite. That doesn't make it sound advice to play carelessly with venomous snakes. The fact that 25% of bites from venomous snakes are "dry bites" doesn't change the fact that the other 75% result in envenomation. Am I putting down an entire class of reptile or simply working with the odds to promote the appropriate level of caution?

Whether or not either of us like it, the majority of Christians are elitists and consider the practice of bigotry to be their God-given right. I don't blame you for disliking that since it colors you with the same brush, even though you may be very different than that. But your efforts would be better spent attempting to change their behaviors than confronting me simply for observing their behaviors. Given the evidence and the stories here, you might want to start by joining those who are trying to penetrate Lee's closed ears.

I suppose that depends if your speaking as a muslum or not. Deal with individual problems, not classes of people. You are the letter of the law not the spirit, not a good place to come from imo

 

[Beastt]

I suppose that depends if your speaking as a muslum or not.

My icon shows that I'm not a Muslim. Obviously, since I'm not one, I can't speak as one.

Deal with individual problems, not classes of people.

When not just the majority, but the vast majority, of those following a particular belief system continually proclaim love, tolerance and caring but practice hatred, intolerance and elitism, maybe the problem lies within the belief system.

You are the letter of the law not the spirit, not a good place to come from imo

I'm not working with laws. I'm working with observations. Christians tend to talk about Christian values, but tend not to practice them. I'd like to see that change. It seems you'd like to see that change as well. But you concentrate your efforts on trying to prevent people from seeing the problem instead of working on the problem itself. It has nothing to do with law.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My icon shows that I'm not a Muslim. Obviously, since I'm not one, I can't speak as one.

but you are speaking from intolerance of people, when you should be speaking about intolerance of behavior. For me to look at your post and see "all Christians are closeminded so=n-sos" says nothing. Frustration may be doing you in, but stick with agenda not throwing dirt b/c you only lose ground that way.

When not just the majority, but the vast majority, of those following a particular belief system continually proclaim love, tolerance and caring but practice hatred, intolerance and elitism, maybe the problem lies within the belief system.

now your peeving me, what would an athiest know about the Christian belief system? How much bible reading have you done from cover to cover, in context, cross referenced etc. Your belief system is easy to defend since you believe in nothing. There are many, many who like the phoney respectability of the Christian status, but that doesn't make them a Christian any more than eating hamburgers makes a person a vegetarian. Since it's those people you have a beef against maybe you need to seperate them from true Christianity and quite running down Christians.

I'm not working with laws. I'm working with observations. Christians tend to talk about Christian values, but tend not to practice them. I'd like to see that change. It seems you'd like to see that change as well. But you concentrate your efforts on trying to prevent people from seeing the problem instead of working on the problem itself. It has nothing to do with law.

You need to be specific about the problems and stop generalizing people. Your issues may be valid, but honestly, I've had discussions with you when Erwin was changing the agenda of the forum, and I don't know what your agenda is, but it's definately your own, so if people aren't siding with you it's probably b/c they see the problem and are dealing with it in their own way.

 

[Beastt]

but you are speaking from intolerance of people, when you should be speaking about intolerance of behavior. For me to look at your post and see "all Christians are closeminded so=n-sos" says nothing. Frustration may be doing you in, but stick with agenda not throwing dirt b/c you only lose ground that way.

This is quickly reaching the point where it may be appropriate to take it to a new thread. I'm speaking of the intolerance of a people who follow a given belief system which is supposed to be based on tolerance. There appears to be something inherent in the belief system or how it is produced in people which lends to a strict intolerance of those who do not subscribe to the belief system. I'm not here to apologize for that. I'm just pointing it out.

now your peeving me,

That is your prerogative, not my intent.

what would an athiest know about the Christian belief system?

Are you serious? Perhaps you should spend a bit more time in GA. If you pay attention, you'll find that the atheists tend to know at least as much about Christianity as the Christians do and sometimes more. We weren't all born non-Christians, you know. I've probably learned more about Christianity since becoming an atheist than I ever knew about it as a theist. I could probably tell you a few things you didn't know and don't care to know as you could me. You might not want to fall for the fallacy that atheists don't know about Christianity at the same time you're objecting to generalizations.

How much bible reading have you done from cover to cover, in context, cross referenced etc.

A little experience around Christians will quickly illustrate that they don't base their beliefs on the Bible. They base them on their own desires and then try to bend the Bible to fit. If you'd like to take this to a different thread in GA, I'd be happy to see how much of the Bible you actually believe and how much your beliefs are based on evasions of the text in the Bible.

Your belief system is easy to defend since you believe in nothing.

Which only demonstrates that you know nothing of my beliefs. I believe in compassion and trying to live in a manner which attempts to avoid harm to other sentient beings. You probably don't want to try to challenge my beliefs on a side-by-side comparison. I have little doubt that I can demonstrate in one sentence that my beliefs are more benevolent, caring and harmless than yours. But this isn't about my beliefs. It's about the common practices of Christians which you seem to dislike, but would rather hide under the carpet by attacking those who expose them.

There are many, many who like the phoney respectability of the Christian status, but that doesn't make them a Christian any more than eating hamburgers makes a person a vegetarian.

Eating a hamburger and being a vegetarian are opposites. Preaching Christian values and calling one's self a "Christian" are not opposites. Preaching Christians values and practicing in direct opposition to those values is just hypocrisy. But it's also demonstrated in the vast majority of those who call themselves "Christian".

Since it's those people you have a beef against maybe you need to seperate them from true Christianity and quite running down Christians.

It would seem we both have a distaste for such people. I prefer to expose them and you prefer to try to hide them and present Christianity as good, and the vast majority of Christians as bad... but you don't want to talk about them.

Before Erwin implemented his changes he put up a poll to find out how many people wanted to practice Christian values and how many didn't. Considering that practicing Christian values would serve to the benefit of all non-Christians, it's fair to say that the vast majority of votes to not practice those values came from the Christians which is also reflected in the comments they presented. The standing assertion was that sharing the site with nonChristians would make it other than a Christian site. They even went so far as to suggest that if the very values they flaunt as being Christian values were to be practiced here, the name should be changed to remove the word "Christian". Erwin accommodated them with a name change.

You can say what you like about generalizations of Christians, they're often well earned.

You need to be specific about the problems and stop generalizing people.

Have you ever visited other Christian message boards? This is a problem inherent in the vast majority of them and rarely found in boards dedicated to other topics. Let the evidence stand.

Your issues may be valid, but honestly, I've had discussions with you when Erwin was changing the agenda of the forum, and I don't know what your agenda is, but it's definately your own, so if people aren't siding with you it's probably b/c they see the problem and are dealing with it in their own way.

Start keeping track of my reputation points. If you watch closely, you'll note that the more candidly I speak, the faster they climb. Apparently, I'm saying the things many here are too frightened to say.

I take note of your objections to being lumped with the majority of Christians. I'm truly sorry about that because I do recognize that there are a small few who do not believe as do the vast majority. But there is a problem inherent in the belief system or those spreading that system and that problem is worthy of the attention it receives.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No thank you as to the debate thread. My main objection is to

there is a problem inherent in the belief system or those spreading that system and that problem is worthy of the attention it receives.

while it may be worthy of the attention it recieves it really is no different than calling Muslums murderers. Personally I don't believe it's any different, it all depends on who your talking to, and you are choosing to lump all into one, choosing to find your "Christians" in the same manner anti-Islamics do, and then slamming the whole religion.
Any self respecting Christian wouldn't bother commenting on your bigotries. I respect God too much to let your defilement of His Words go unchallenged. But that's all I have to say. Good luck.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

PS, sorry for jumping all over your one post, I'm most intolerant of intolerance. I agree there needs to be changes but I'm not interested in tackling the super structure till I see the wrong and try to correct it where I can, but I find talking about a waste of time.