Discussion/Questions on new FSGs.

[Athene]

This is good for the forum indeed, as well as the related followup answers to cantata's and fin12's similar questions.

Concerning the last part of this answer Athene, would it be acceptable to respond to such as that with bible verses of a posters choice or to even simply say that bigotry is a sin or sinful behavior?

If our Member A starts a thread stating ''I believe homosexuality is a sin because of these Bible verses'' followed by a list of verses, then Member B responds back with ''I believe bigotry is a sin because of these verses'' then it's clear Member B is flaming Member A by calling him a bigot. Context is the key here.

I ask because I hope we won't see it now degenerate into an issue of using the bible selectively to insult or pushing insults through simply by attaching the word 'sin' to them. Both seem a very possible danger of occuring.

Yes they're both strong possibilities. Every time there is a rule change there are people who test the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

 

[NPH]

If our Member A starts a thread stating ''I believe homosexuality is a sin because of these Bible verses'' followed by a list of verses, then Member B responds back with ''I believe bigotry is a sin because of these verses'' then it's clear Member B is flaming Member A by calling him a bigot. Context is the key here.



Yes they're both strong possibilities. Every time there is a rule change there are people who test the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

Gotcha. I would think that the best response in the example would be to just simply say "I believe you are interpreting those verses incorrectly and homosexuality is not a sin", but I hope that the moderators will be looking at context for the first post in the example even with a moderate response like that. It's the old chestnut of simply quoting pearls before swine at someone solely to insult with the bible

I'm feeling pretty ok about these rules, though I'm waiting to see if staff actually enforces them as described. There's been times in the past where the stated interpretation of the rules was not actually enforced, and it would be good to see that CF is past that. I'm sure there are reports on these very topics already so it likely won't be long before we see them enforced.

I look very much forward to being able to discuss issues with people without having to wade through the sea of insults

 

[cantata]

Member A - ''I believe that God does not approve of homosexuality''
Member B - '' I don't care what your imaginary god has to say''

Fair enough.

How about this?

Member B - "I believe that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable."
Member A - "I don't care what is acceptable in your fantasy world where God doesn't exist."

What I'm worried about is that everyone's convictions will be respected, except those of atheists, who, not having any particular creed or text to adhere to, are more difficult to defend from "attacks on their beliefs".

 

[quatona]

Member A - ''I believe that God does not approve of homosexuality''
Member B - '' I don't care what your imaginary god has to say''

That response of member B is the kind of thing we don't want because it carries a strong insinuation that Member A's faith is all make believe and that makes the post problematic for us. It Member B had said something along the lines of ''that means nothing to me because I don't believe your god exists'' that would be acceptable because it's simply stating Member B's point of view without demeaning the faith of Member A.

I´m not sure I can follow.

The only substantial difference I see is that the first statement is stated as an opinion ("I believe...").
Thus, in order to level the playing field for the sake of clarity, allow me to rephrase it: "God does not approve of homosexuality" - in which case both posters merely post from within their beliefs regarding the existence of god(s) (a god exists vs. god(s) don´t exist, i.e. are imaginary) without explicitly presenting them as their beliefs (which however isn´t hard to tell, anyway).
Likewise, if poster B had said "I don´t care what your -as I believe - imaginary god has to say." both statements would be explicitly presented as opinions.

I am all for civil discussions, mind you, but if you try to regulate such subtle differences (explicitly marked as opinion vs. not explicitly marked as opinion) you will increase the problems rather than solving them.

Imo.

 

[Athene]

Fair enough.

How about this?

Member B - "I believe that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable."
Member A - "I don't care what is acceptable in your fantasy world where God doesn't exist."

What I'm worried about is that everyone's convictions will be respected, except those of atheists, who, not having any particular creed or text to adhere to, are more difficult to defend from "attacks on their beliefs".

That is a valid concern and the FSG's don't address that. I'll look into it.

 

[quatona]

"God doesn´t exist." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I don´t believe god exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"God exists" Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I believe God exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"You are wrong in your belief that God doesn´t exist." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"You are wrong in your belief that a god exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"Your god is non-existent". Acceptable or unacceptable?
"Your god is imaginary" Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I believe that your god is imaginary" Acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[Athene]

Fair enough.

How about this?

Member B - "I believe that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable."
Member A - "I don't care what is acceptable in your fantasy world where God doesn't exist."

What I'm worried about is that everyone's convictions will be respected, except those of atheists, who, not having any particular creed or text to adhere to, are more difficult to defend from "attacks on their beliefs".

I haven't yet received a definitive reply back from an advisor so here is my tentative response, a response like that would probably fall foul of the polemics and flaming rule from the FSG.

Posts must address the topics of the thread, and add substantively to the discussion, rather than responding personally to posters.

 

[Athene]

For the purposes of E&M only

"God doesn´t exist." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I don´t believe god exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"God exists" Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I believe God exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"You are wrong in your belief that God doesn´t exist." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"You are wrong in your belief that a god exists." Acceptable or unacceptable?
"Your god is non-existent". Acceptable or unacceptable? Borderline - it would depend on context
"Your god is imaginary" Acceptable or unacceptable?
"I believe that your god is imaginary" Acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[quatona]

For the purposes of E&M only

Thanks for answering.
The results, however, render the underlying standards even more mysterious, to me.

 

[God-free]

How about this?... Two Rules... 1) Present your ideas and opinions without intentionally insulting anyone. 2) When someone feels insulted by you, apologize for the misunderstanding and move on.

~Barbara

 

[Athene]

Yep, I realise there will be some people deeply unhappy with this ''it uses that word in the Bible'' and all that jazz, but, this isn't going to be a forum where certain people are prohibited from saying ''your behaviour is bigoted'' while others are allowed to get away with saying ''homosexuality is an abomination''. The use of such terms in abundance was one of the reasons the forum was closed. Saying that homosexuality is a sin, or sinful behaviour is allowed, the use of Bible verses is not prohibited even if they contain the word abomination.

There has been further clarification on the use of the term abomination to describe certain behaviours.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7267295http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268116

Instead of using phrases like homosexuals are abominations, or homosexuality is an abomination they can say sex between men is an abomination. What that is doing is restating the bible without flaming anyone. The bottom line really depends on the context of the discussion. If the post/thread is reported the moderation staff will have to discuss and come to a consensus if its flaming or not.

Its really all about the context of the posts.

 

[NPH]

Ah, so I can say that worshiping a deity is an abomination then? That's stating a humanist position without flaming anyone. How about if I restate portions of The God Delusion that insult christians, would that be as acceptable as is being allowed for christians?

And for the record, the bible does NOT say that sex between men is an abomination. It says if a man lies with a man as a woman it is an abomination, their death shall be upon them. What that exactly means and the disagreements on it due to context result in vastly different viewpoints.

IMO, the post you quoted is saying that one viewpoint of particular christian denominations is the correct one, de facto stating that by CF rules certain christian denominations are flat out wrong and that the acceptable ones can insult at will, so long as they do it sneakily.

My apologies, but if that quote is how it is intended to be enforced then just chuck any pretense of a level and fair playing field and state outright that individual christian interpretations are valid no matter how insulting.

 

[NPH]

p.s. that link is not viewable to me

 

[Athene]

Ah, so I can say that worshiping a deity is an abomination then? That's stating a humanist position without flaming anyone. How about if I restate portions of The God Delusion that insult christians, would that be as acceptable as is being allowed for christians?

And for the record, the bible does NOT say that sex between men is an abomination. It says if a man lies with a man as a woman it is an abomination, their death shall be upon them. What that exactly means and the disagreements on it due to context result in vastly different viewpoints.

Agreed.

IMO, the post you quoted is saying that one viewpoint of particular christian denominations is the correct one, de facto stating that by CF rules certain christian denominations are flat out wrong and that the acceptable ones can insult at will, so long as they do it sneakily.

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

My apologies, but if that quote is how it is intended to be enforced then just chuck any pretense of a level and fair playing field and state outright that individual christian interpretations are valid no matter how insulting.

I've posted the correct link now, please go and read the thread it links to, another member posted a concern that we would be forbidding members from paraphrasing Bible verses, well we're not going to do that, posting verses to support an argument is permitted, and they can paraphrase If a member posts that according to the Bible or God that the act of two men having sex with each other is an abomination then that is an acceptable paraphrase of a Bible verse.

You said yourself, there are many interpretations and many view points, it seems to me that you are wanting us to forbid the expression of the most conservative view.

 

[NPH]

You said yourself, there are many interpretations and many view points, it seems to me that you are wanting us to forbid the expression of the most conservative view.

How so? What i'm suggesting is the direct quoting of the verse and nothing more. That doesn't forbid any specific viewpoint at all. The viewpoint of the poster should be fairly obvious by the content of their posts, without necessitating them finding various ways to insert the word 'abomination' to insult those they are speaking to.

The whole point of this rule, isn't it, is to forbid the expression of ANY view in an insulting manner? So why does a special consideration have to be made for, in your own words, the conservative view so that it can still insult at will? Will the same consideration be given to liberal or non-christian views? Can I really paraphrase Christopher Hitchen's worst and nastiest comments about christianity and get away with it?

And let's be honest, saying "sex between men is an abomination" and "homosexuality is an abomination" is the same bloody thing lol If anything, it's targeting an even more specific group. Why can't they just quote the verse, say they believe that means it's sinful, and leave it at that? Why must they be allowed, one way or the other, for no apparent good reason, to use what we all recognize is an insulting word solely because it happens to be the word in the bible?

Are you going to allow christians to call us swine or any other wonderful thing simply because they can find cutesy ways to 'rephrase' what's in the bible?

My prediction: Staff will be dealing with whinges about "whaaah, you're not letting me say what's in the bible" until you've caved in on each and every one of them and christians can use the bible as a tool of insult simply via the method of 'rephrasing'.

 

[MachZer0]

There has been further clarification on the use of the term abomination to describe certain behaviours.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268116

Based on that then it would also be perfectly acceptable to say that male homosexuality is an abomination according to God, correct?

 

[MachZer0]

How so? What i'm suggesting is the direct quoting of the verse and nothing more. That doesn't forbid any specific viewpoint at all. The viewpoint of the poster should be fairly obvious by the content of their posts, without necessitating them finding various ways to insert the word 'abomination' to insult those they are speaking to.

The whole point of this rule, isn't it, is to forbid the expression of ANY view in an insulting manner? So why does a special consideration have to be made for, in your own words, the conservative view so that it can still insult at will? Will the same consideration be given to liberal or non-christian views? Can I really paraphrase Christopher Hitchen's worst and nastiest comments about christianity and get away with it?

And let's be honest, saying "sex between men is an abomination" and "homosexuality is an abomination" is the same bloody thing lol If anything, it's targeting an even more specific group. Why can't they just quote the verse, say they believe that means it's sinful, and leave it at that? Why must they be allowed, one way or the other, for no apparent good reason, to use what we all recognize is an insulting word solely because it happens to be the word in the bible?

Are you going to allow christians to call us swine or any other wonderful thing simply because they can find cutesy ways to 'rephrase' what's in the bible?

My prediction: Staff will be dealing with whinges about "whaaah, you're not letting me say what's in the bible" until you've caved in on each and every one of them and christians can use the bible as a tool of insult simply via the method of 'rephrasing'.

On a christian site, why would they restrict Christians from quoting the Christian Bible which contains a word that some don't like? That doesn't make much sense to me. It would seem better for one to avoid such discussions rather than engage, and even start them knowing full well what Christians believe regarding the topic

 

[quatona]

There has been further clarification on the use of the term abomination to describe certain behaviours.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268116

Is "restating" only considered an excuse when it´s about the bible, or does this go for any other book as well?

 

[Athene]

How so? What i'm suggesting is the direct quoting of the verse and nothing more. That doesn't forbid any specific viewpoint at all. The viewpoint of the poster should be fairly obvious by the content of their posts, without necessitating them finding various ways to insert the word 'abomination' to insult those they are speaking to.

The whole point of this rule, isn't it, is to forbid the expression of ANY view in an insulting manner? So why does a special consideration have to be made for, in your own words, the conservative view so that it can still insult at will? Will the same consideration be given to liberal or non-christian views? Can I really paraphrase Christopher Hitchen's worst and nastiest comments about christianity and get away with it?

And let's be honest, saying "sex between men is an abomination" and "homosexuality is an abomination" is the same bloody thing lol If anything, it's targeting an even more specific group. Why can't they just quote the verse, say they believe that means it's sinful, and leave it at that? Why must they be allowed, one way or the other, for no apparent good reason, to use what we all recognize is an insulting word solely because it happens to be the word in the bible?

Are you going to allow christians to call us swine or any other wonderful thing simply because they can find cutesy ways to 'rephrase' what's in the bible?

My prediction: Staff will be dealing with whinges about "whaaah, you're not letting me say what's in the bible" until you've caved in on each and every one of them and christians can use the bible as a tool of insult simply via the method of 'rephrasing'.

Ok I get it, you're concerned that this clarification of the rule leaves a window open for certain people to liberally pepper their posts with the word abomination under the guise that they're merely paraphrasing the Bible.

On a Christian forum we can't forbid the quoting nor the paraphrasing of scripture, the best we can do to make things as fair as possible by restricting the usage of certain words so they are not being used to describe people or behaviours, but instead specific acts.

If a member is trolling and baiting in a thread by giving their posts a rich sprinkling of the word abomination in the guise of paraphrasing the Bible or even Bible verses then we will deal with it as trolling and baiting. We don't allow people to get away with flaming others just because they're using a Bible verse, or because the term they used is in the Bible.

 

[Athene]

Based on that then it would also be perfectly acceptable to say that male homosexuality is an abomination according to God, correct?

When is it ever 'perfectly acceptable' to say things to other people that they will find offensive and insulting?