Uh, so the previous thread was closed and it said to ask questions on the matter in a new thread.
I am not interested in debating whether jesus loves you, whether it is a matter of faith or not.
I am interested in an explanation as to whether or not the moderator considered all of the possibilities.
I understand what twixster said, I am not sure she (I think she, right? sorry if not) considered the alternative case before issuing a decision (I think I laid it out in the closed thread, it is not that complex) and if so, why she chose one over the other?
For someone “not interested in debating” you were doing an awful lot of it in the other thread. So please confine yourself to the specific moderator action here. If you engage in debate on the other issue here, this thread may be closed as well.
I am trying to focus on the moderator’s action and reason for behaving as she did.
As it turns out, between my last post and yours, I went back to the factoid thread, and I see that there are other Biblical conjectures listed as factoids and allowed to stand. (see post #72).
I am not an expert on these matters, but the only difference I discern between “Jesus loves you” and “Adam ate an apple” is that one is a “fact” proffered from the Old Testament and one is proffered from the New Testament.
Is there another difference as to why one was allowed not only to stand, but to generate in-thread discussion, and the other was shout down immediately with a moderator note?
If you can’t discern a difference between those statements, you’re not looking very hard. “Jesus loves you” is a basic premise of faith of many Christians. The exact kind of fruit that Adam ate has no theological significance.
Well with all due respect you didn’t understand what I was saying on the other thread.
What you say may be true about many Christians, but for many others, whom I meet daily, they assert it is true, as in factual. They don’t believe it as a matter of faith, they believe it because it is true, in the sense “triangles have 3 sides” is true.
I believe that is the factoid to which ClaudeRains was referring to, not necessarily the identical, overloaded language of the group you are referring to.
Isn’t that at least possible in your view? Is it possible that one man’s fact is another man’s factoid?
And it is possible, not being Christian myself, that I don’t understand the relationship between “truth” and “fact” and “belief” to Christians themselves. I suppose the error could be mine? Since it appears you are making assumptions that I understand that relationship in a certain way, but maybe I don’t understand it the same way you do, can you be more explicit as to what the relationship is?
Mine is that there is a large subset of Christians, for whom the Bible is literally true, thus blurring the line between faith and fact. Is this different from your understanding Collibri? Or for that matter, if it is different from anyone else’s? please chime in and I will take the opportunity to learn.
Pending that correction, I thought ClaudeRain’s post was wicked good satire myself.
I didn’t read the whole fact vs. factoid debate, but I think the moderating issue comes down to this: when people take potshots against religion in a thread that is not about religion, it usually ends badly. The same thing happens when people interject religion into a non-religious or irreligious topic, but that’s probably not as common. So in this case Claude Raines was knocking religion in a topic that wasn’t about religion. When that kind of thing happens, sooner or later a religious poster will object or someone will complain that it’s off-topic - which had already happened - and if the mods don’t get involved, the thread often turns into an argument about religion and the original topic gets lost. An argument about the truth of the statement “Jesus love you” belongs in Great Debates, or maybe IMHO under some conditions. It doesn’t belong in an MPSIMS thread about “Factoids that sound right, for a moment…”
I applaud the mod intervention that prompted the original question as well as this completely unnecessary companion thread. There is no innocent explanation for interjecting yet another episode of “Christians r teh dum” into another thread where religion is not the topic. The only reasons to do such are thing are either jerkish or trollish, and entirely inappropriate.
And, because someone is sure to get this next part wrong—I am an atheist. I’m just not an asshole about it. Like many here insist on being.
This sums up very well why a post like that of Claude Remains would get a note.
You fundamentally misunderstand the reason the post got a note. It doesn’t have do with whether the post was a fact, factoid, non-factual, etc., but rather its potential to disrupt the thread. As I said, “Jesus loves you” is a basic premise for many Christians. Thus it has much more likelihood of provoking a reaction and an off-topic hijack than a minor quibble like “Adam ate an apple.”
Your whole argument therefore about whether or not Christians believe the statement to be factual or not is irrelevant.
Well of course, that’s why I asked. Isn’t that the purpose of this forum? Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not allowed to criticize mod actions in the pit, right?
And I didn’t come here to criticize, I came here to ask why.
And it was not until **Marley’**s post that anyone attempted an complete argument to explain what’s going on. So kudos to Marley.
Yes you did say that and, not being a Christian, I wonder if you could elaborate for me why, if it is only a basic premise for someChristians, and not for others, yet it is untouchable?
Also and separately, if instead, ClaudeRains had said “There is but one God”, which I understand to be the only premise for all Jews, would the moderator have acted? Or if someone had said “Zeus is the King of Gods”? Or “Bob Dobbs is the world’s greatest salesman”?
No, my position (not “argument”) is not whether Christians believe it to be factual or not. Heck I thought all do, but you say only some do. Ignorance fought I guess.
My point was that the statement has all the factors of a factoid, and so far no one has disputed this. Therefore, the post was entirely on topic, even if it was holding up a mirror some might not like to look at.
What the explanations seem to converge on is that there are mod procedures and prerogatives to head off a trainwreck regarding Christianity, correct?
I am not on that forum often, so maybe the Jesus is Love post was off-topic due to a forum rule I didn’t know about that says even the vaguest reference to a religion is verboten no matter how on topic it would be otherwise, lest a trainwreck ensue? If so, then again ignorance fought and I offer my apologies for not following it, even though I didn’t know about it.
Christianity has no particular status. The objective is to avoid off-topic hijacks (and potentially trainwrecks.) The remark could have had to do with Islam, Judaism, Republicanism, liberalism, or for that matter PCs vs Macs; that is, potentially hot button issues that would provoke counter-attacks from the other side.
You seem to be intent on misunderstanding. No one has said or implied that “the vaguest reference to a religion is verboten no matter how on topic it would be otherwise.” As has already been noted, other posts in that thread reference religious beliefs and did not get a mod note.
It’s Claude Remains. Not Claude Rains, Claude Remains. If you’re going to pretend to get upset about some perceived injustice done to some poster, at least get his damn name right.
Then why did you just move my GQ question to GD about a specific thing YOU said is true of some Christians but not others when I specifically worded the question to to avoid a debate and to avoid a move to GD? before one single person had a chance to respond?
Is there no place on this board where it is appropriate to ask a factual question regarding the beliefs of Christians?
here is the link to the thread, which I have asked to be closed btw, because you are imposing a debate where I am not interested one. In the other thread, at least the thread was allowed to continue in place and folks deemed out of line were instgructed not to respond as they did moving forward. That seemed to work.
Because its a basic issue of belief to which there is no single answer. It will pretty certainly lead to debate.
Some questions about religion are sufficiently narrow and specific that they can be asked in GQ. This question is so broad that it was more appropriate to GD. The fact that it is in GD does not preclude people providing factual answers.
Besides the above reasons, there’s the fact that almost any thread you participate in ends up turning into a debate.
Not true. I asked what other than love Christians believe Jesus is. Aren;'t they capable of saying so? Can’t people simply say what they have been told on the topic?
and most of all, if people were to get off topic, couldn’t you instruct them to take it to GD and stick to the topic? I thought I have seen that done before in GQ, although I can’t offer a cite.
[QUOTE]
Some questions about religion are sufficiently narrow and specific that they can be asked in GQ. This question is so broad that it was more appropriate to GD. The fact that it is in GD does not preclude people providing factual answers.
[QUOTE]
How is it broad? In this thread you yourself summed up the “core” belief of many Christians in one single word. Is it really that much more complicated for others? How is a non Christian to know that?
If I had asked for answers of, say, 50 words or less - 500% the length of how you described the core belief for many, would that be better? Or is that a parlor game better suited for the Game Room maybe?
Yeah because some moderators (for some values of “some”) are quick to read intent where there is none, snark where there is none, and then make issues where there are none.
That and of the ~194 threads I have ever posted to and subscribed to, which is probably > 90% of the threads I have been in, I bet, just as “most Christians hold Jesus is love as a core belief”, most of my posts have been in GD or the Pit where debates are expected.
So with all due respect, please don’t characterize my posts as something they are not. They are generally to be found in places where debate occurs whether or not I was there. And I am hardly among the most frequent posters in either GD or the Pit (or anywhere else), and for all I know, I have never been pitted myself.
My ample and sincere apologies to Claude Remains for mangling his or her screen name. It happens to mine too, so I know it sucks. Sorry and I will try to not do it again!
and on that closed ATMB thread, Colibri wrote in his closing message:
showing he misunderstood my question - which was why I had to negotiate to get the now-gd thread closed.
Despite Colibri’s claims, I have not engaged in debate in the original factoid thread, nor have I engaged in debate in the now-gd thread. Anyone can read those threads and see that is true:
What I asked in my message just prior to this was, why in the now-gd thread, when I requested to close the thread, I was asked to negotiate its closing by agreeing to this behavior or that, by Colibri?
And yet he feels no hesitation in closing threads here, apparently without reading or at least understanding them, saying he already offered an answer when he clearly didn’t, forcing me to ask again:
Why do I have to negotiate with a mod - not even the mod of the forum in question - to get a thread closed?
Look, I am not picking on Colibri - I don’t feel anything personal towards mods, like I see others say from time to time on ATMB. I don’t know why he feels he is inside my head, or whjy he even cares to consider it. I don’t know why he closes one thread without reading or understanding the question, yet won’t close another where he has read the question, but failed to understand it, or why he insinuates there is something wrong or even notable that most of my posts are in GD and/or the Pit. So what? I don’t start many threads, and that is where I find topics that interest me most often.
Does that mean that I can never open a topic in another forum when I do start a thread? What isColibri saying? Colibri, since I am not in your head the way you seem to think you are in mine, can you say in plain English what the significance of your “rested case” is, if any?
