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" policyMy 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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
LOL!!!! No, but I have some beach property in Arizona.......Sure....now you're gonna try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge, right?
This website is not offering public accomodations. You might want to try Orbitz.Unequal access to public accomodations is.
Your opinion.No, so UnChristian acts like this are made to please one faction.
Your opinion.He may find himself without a site.
This from someone who feels qualified to judge others.
LOL!!!! Again, your opinion.
1. I do not appreciate your attack on Hentenza.
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.
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.
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?
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
This website is not offering public accomodations. You might want to try Orbitz.
Your opinion.
Your opinion.
LOL!!!! Again, your opinion.
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.
I am sure that the court case will be aired in Court tv. I'll be looking for it.Nice try, but it meets the criteria for one in civil rights law.
Done. Post 112.Let's see your answer to # 109 then.
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.
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.
Nice try, but it meets the criteria for one in civil rights law.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?