This forum is now officially a Christian Only forum!!!!

[PETE_]

My response to CaDan refers to people that choose a Christian icon only to flame God. We have had issues with this in the past.
Tenebrae, let me put your mind at ease that the force removal of icons is non negotiable. Most of current staff would not stand for it.

I can imagine there are those that may be ready to give this a try just to they can test the "no forced icon change" policy

 

[CaDan]

Yes, I do understand and I am not going to be part of a policy that forces removal of christian icons from members that self identify as Christians. My response to CaDan refers to people that choose a Christian icon only to flame God. We have had issues with this in the past.

Then we get into rather difficult questions of what it means to "flame God." The Scriptures are full of examples of people very, very angry with God. Job probably would have been banned under some interpretations of "flaming God." The official CF response to people having a crisis of faith--a long dark night of the soul (to quote St. John of the Cross)--has been mixed.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Yes, I do understand and I am not going to be part of a policy that forces removal of christian icons from members that self identify as Christians. My response to CaDan refers to people that choose a Christian icon only to flame God. We have had issues with this in the past.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying. CaDan speaks more eloquently so please, read his post just above this one.

 

[Texas Lynn]

LOL!!! That is simply not the case.

Sure....now you're gonna try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge, right?

This is not a government. This is simply a website which the owner wants to run as he pleases. No "civil" rights are being violated.

Unequal access to public accomodations is.

Why? Are you a paying member of this website? You should know that there is NO way to please everyone.

No, so UnChristian acts like this are made to please one faction.

It is acceptable to the owner of this site.

He may find himself without a site.

Your assumption, again.


Your assumption.


Your assumption.

This from someone who feels qualified to judge others.

 

[CaDan]

*cracks knuckles*

*sips mediocre Spanish shiraz*

It is much more relaxing not to have to hold to the official story. I was never very good at it.

 

[CaDan]

I can imagine there are those that may be ready to give this a try just to they can test the "no forced icon change" policy

I think there may very well be some folks who do this. My recommendation would be to just let them be.

Trolling the rules only work if those enforcing the rules react reflexively. It is almost a form of civil disobedience. "If you want to make a criminal, make laws. If you want to make a thief, make property."

 

[Hentenza]

Then we get into rather difficult questions of what it means to "flame God." The Scriptures are full of examples of people very, very angry with God. Job probably would have been banned under some interpretations of "flaming God." The official CF response to people having a crisis of faith--a long dark night of the soul (to quote St. John of the Cross)--has been mixed.

Steve, you are making this difficult. You know what I am saying. Tell me, how many trolls with a Christian icon did you banned while you were on staff?

Lets keep this realistic please.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, I am stating my intention to follow the rules of this site as you should. I am not going to judge anyone's heart. That is not what is about. You are again making assumptions.

All right then. Let's try this:

Suppose in a "Christians Only" area a conservative poster accuses a liberal poster (with a Christian icon) of being "not a Christian". Will you state unequivocally you will rule such a flame and punish the offender to the severest extent under present protocols? Will you give your word that under no circumstances will staff not only rule such flames out of order but also never seek to remove the Christian icon from the liberal Christian poster under these circumstances?

 

[Hentenza]

Sure....now you're gonna try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge, right?

LOL!!!! No, but I have some beach property in Arizona.......

Unequal access to public accomodations is.

This website is not offering public accomodations. You might want to try Orbitz.

No, so UnChristian acts like this are made to please one faction.

Your opinion.

He may find himself without a site.

Your opinion.

This from someone who feels qualified to judge others.

LOL!!!! Again, your opinion.

 

[Texas Lynn]

1. I do not appreciate your attack on Hentenza.

There's no attack. He agreed to be point man on this so he knows being questioned is part of his job as it is.

I know he tries to be fair and objective. For example, he made me change a reference to "occult Mormon temple ceremonies" even though he most likely agrees with me that Mormonism is false.

If it had been an attack on liberal Christians it would be all "I don't see what's the problem"

2. Your appeal to "civil rights" is nonsensical. Even the illegitimate government coercion into the private sphere that you so enthusiastically support does not extend to a internet discussion board for Christians. It does, however, show that the alarmists are correct in stating that the gay rights lobby will not stop at the church door but will seek to impose acceptance of homosexuality on churches as well.

I think we're getting off topic here but you may not be aware I've been trained as a civil rights advocate by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Civl Rights exist in cyberspace, too.

 

[Hentenza]

All right then. Let's try this:

Suppose in a "Christians Only" area a conservative poster accuses a liberal poster (with a Christian icon) of being "not a Christian". Will you state unequivocally you will rule such a flame and punish the offender to the severest extent under present protocols? Will you give your word that under no circumstances will staff not only rule such flames out of order but also never seek to remove the Christian icon from the liberal Christian poster under these circumstances?

TL,

Calling ANYONE that sports a Christian icon non Christian has been against the rules for a loooooong time. Mods will rule such a post a violation. The "Are the Mormons Christian" thread comes to mind.

As far as icons are concerned, I do not nor will I agree to forcibly remove Christian icons from members that self identify as Christian. Most of the present members of staff, including me, are against that.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I can imagine there are those that may be ready to give this a try just to they can test the "no forced icon change" policy

Why in the world shouldn't they? Either you are persons of your word or you are not.

 

[Texas Lynn]

This website is not offering public accomodations. You might want to try Orbitz.

Nice try, but it meets the criteria for one in civil rights law.

Your opinion.

Your opinion.

LOL!!!! Again, your opinion.

Let's see your answer to # 109 then. <edit: his post #112 satisfies my concerns for now.>

 

[Texas Lynn]

TL,

Calling ANYONE that sports a Christian icon non Christian has been against the rules for a loooooong time. Mods will rule such a post a violation. The "Are the Mormons Christian" thread comes to mind.

As far as icons are concerned, I do not nor will I agree to forcibly remove Christian icons from members that self identify as Christian. Most of the present members of staff, including me, are against that.

That sounds unequivocal enough, so I thank you. I don't have any other personal concerns then, but I'm still against the exclusion of Non-Christians on principle.

 

[Hentenza]

Nice try, but it meets the criteria for one in civil rights law.

I am sure that the court case will be aired in Court tv. I'll be looking for it.

Let's see your answer to # 109 then.

Done. Post 112.

 

[Hentenza]

That sounds unequivocal enough, so I thank you. I don't have any other personal concerns then, but I'm still against the exclusion of Non-Christians on principle.

Thanks!!!!!

Now as far as removing those democrat icons.........

 

[PETE_]

I have no interest in forcing someone to change their icon but also do not want to deal with a bunch of posts that violate the SoF just so that someone can make a point.

 

[CaDan]

Steve, you are making this difficult. You know what I am saying. Tell me, how many trolls with a Christian icon did you banned while you were on staff?

Lets keep this realistic please.

I did a temp cool off ban on one that I am sure of. 72 hours IIRC.

I'm not being my "contrary" hat in this little exchange. There are simple trolls from places like 4chan who sometimes decide it might by lulzy to assault CF. But there are also people with serious crises of faith who post uncomfortable things. CF has historically had a hard time figuring out what to do with people in the in-between places of the Faith.

I'm not making this difficult--it is difficult.

 

[CaDan]

Nice try, but it meets the criteria for one in civil rights law.

Strangely enough I've actually done a bit of research on this. He's right; you're wrong.

 

[CaDan]

I have no interest in forcing someone to change their icon but also do not want to deal with a bunch of posts that violate the SoF just so that someone can make a point.

Why not?

Seriously, it has been my observation that trolling of that nature only works when a forum's administration reacts to the trolling. If the members of a forum just roll with the troll, the actual damage done is minimal.