Please clarify rule a.

[RichardBurger]

The Rule "a. Directly calling another member "cultist," "heretic" or "bigot" as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion."

Since the rule says ""DIRECTLY" does that mean a person can insinuate a person is a heretic by saying that person's belief is heretical and get by with it? I would like this cleared up since I was told my belief system is a heretical one.

Richard

[janine]

Well... hypothetically... If I think your belief system is heretical, how am I supposed to talk with you about it if I cannot use that word?  What would you suggest? 

[RichardBurger]

Well... hypothetically... If I think your belief system is heretical, how am I supposed to talk with you about it if I cannot use that word?  What would you suggest? 

I don't think the word should be used AT ALL unless the subject of the thread is about heretical teachings. -- To say someone elses views are heretical is the same as calling the person that has those views a heretic. You can't just rationalize around it.

It could be said by everyone on this forum that anyone who has a different opinion is a heretic. -- The point is that it denigrates those that have a different opinion. And that is the reason it is used. It is also the reason that it has no place on a forum.

What do you think?

Richard

[admin]

It's at the discretion of moderators. We'll look at each issue individually. A certain belief might be called heresy, but we don't want someone calling a person a heretic. We're trying to prevent personal attacks.

Thanks
Lee

[janine]

You are right, RichardBurger, one way to look at it is that everyone is a heretic according to someone.  Some people, I would be proud to be thought heretical against.

[Jaime]

Well... hypothetically... If I think your belief system is heretical, how am I supposed to talk with you about it if I cannot use that word?  What would you suggest? 

I don't think the word should be used AT ALL unless the subject of the thread is about heretical teachings. -- To say someone elses views are heretical is the same as calling the person that has those views a heretic. You can't just rationalize around it.

It could be said by everyone on this forum that anyone who has a different opinion is a heretic. -- The point is that it denigrates those that have a different opinion. And that is the reason it is used. It is also the reason that it has no place on a forum.

What do you think?

Richard

Richard, to me if someone here accuses the other of being hopelessly mired in the law, and not capable of understanding the true Gospel, because of their beliefs, then that is equivalent to calling the accuser a heretic. Both tactics should not be employed, in my humble opinion.

[janine]

If I think you are tying yourself, and, God forbid, others, down with extraneous bits of the Old Law -- or even the Gospel According To Jaime --  I will say so.

I don't think that breaks any of the rules.

The problem lies almost entirely in the thought you give to how you phrase your opinions.  (Which is a funny point to make, coming from bluntspoken moi.)  That, and if you try to label your opinion as something more.

Example #1:

"Dear Fellow Poster-Dude, you seem to be saying that a believer has to hold onto XYZ doctrine or else he's no believer -- and ultimately Hellbound.  Have I understood you correctly?

If that's what you truly mean, then I disagree.  I base my belief -- my opinion on the matter -- on my understanding of the Bible, especially these passages..."

Example #2:

"Fellow Poster Dude, you idiot, I think you are a fake Christian and a Hellbound monkey to boot, if you are preaching XYZ doctrine -- or at least, your spin on XYZ doctrine -- as an integral part of the mechanism of salvation of the soul.  I won't bother to cite any Scripture to support my opinion, because a) I don't know any, and b) you obviously don't understand any."

See?