Catholics and the Antichrist slideshow

[CSloan]

Why did you move and lock my thread?

[DCR]

I believe it violates the following forum rule:

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a "cult

[CSloan]

I believe it violates the following forum rule:

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a "cult

[DCR]

But, the posted site referred to the "religious organization" of other forum members (namely those who are Catholic) as "Antichrist" (which I believe to be along the same lines as "Satanic").

No bigotry.  If a Catholic or Orthodox poster posted something saying that Protestants are Antichrist, and I saw it, rest assured I would take the same action.

[CSloan]

But, the posted site referred to the "religious organization" of other forum members (namely those who are Catholic) as "Antichrist" (which I believe to be along the same lines as "Satanic").

So if I sincerely believe the Pope is the Antichrist, and I share my beliefs here; I am in violation of the forum rules?

[DCR]

As I understand the forum rule as it is stated, I would have to answer... yes.

Here's the thing... the forum rule is even broader than that.  And, I would say that we as moderators often look the other way on some things when we shouldn't.  For some reason, the word "heretic" (which is explicitly covered by the rule) doesn't personally trouble me as much as... and, there's just something about this word... "Antichrist." 

Referring to other Christians as "Antichrist" is perhaps the most serious affront one can think of... perhaps even more serious than calling someone "Satanic."  So, it's not a word we just casually throw around.  It's a very grave thing to accuse someone or their church of.

FWIW, I saw your post earlier today, and admittedly, I initially looked the other way.  But, your post was reported, so I couldn't ignore the issue any longer.  And, for what it's worth, perhaps not all of the other moderators necessarily agree with my action.  But, we each have to do what we believe is right.

[CSloan]

As I understand the forum rule as it is stated, I would have to answer... yes.

Here's the thing... the forum rule is even broader than that.  And, I would say that we as moderators often look the other way on some things when we shouldn't.  For some reason, the word "heretic" (which is explicitly covered by the rule) doesn't personally trouble me as much as... and, there's just something about this word... "Antichrist." 

Referring to other Christians as "Antichrist" is perhaps the most serious affront one can think of... perhaps even more serious than calling someone "Satanic."  So, it's not a word we just casually throw around.  It's a very grave thing to accuse someone or their church of.

FWIW, I saw your post earlier today, and admittedly, I initially looked the other way.  But, your post was reported, so I couldn't ignore the issue any longer.  And, for what it's worth, perhaps not all of the other moderators necessarily agree with my action.  But, we each have to do what we believe is right.

So because one catholic complained you remove my post, that doesn't sound like anything to do with the rules.

That reeks of censorship.

The Scripture speaks of Antichrist. Are you going to restrict the use of passages next?

[Bon Voyage]

As I understand the forum rule as it is stated, I would have to answer... yes.

Here's the thing... the forum rule is even broader than that.  And, I would say that we as moderators often look the other way on some things when we shouldn't.  For some reason, the word "heretic" (which is explicitly covered by the rule) doesn't personally trouble me as much as... and, there's just something about this word... "Antichrist." 

Referring to other Christians as "Antichrist" is perhaps the most serious affront one can think of... perhaps even more serious than calling someone "Satanic."  So, it's not a word we just casually throw around.  It's a very grave thing to accuse someone or their church of.

FWIW, I saw your post earlier today, and admittedly, I initially looked the other way.  But, your post was reported, so I couldn't ignore the issue any longer.  And, for what it's worth, perhaps not all of the other moderators necessarily agree with my action.  But, we each have to do what we believe is right.

So because one catholic complained you remove my post, that doesn't sound like anything to do with the rules.

That reeks of censorship.

The Scripture speaks of Antichrist. Are you going to restrict the use of passages next?

Calm down.  You may not question the salvation of others who claim Christ on this forum who would fit the description given in rule 6.  You may, however, with scriptural backing, show certain doctrines to be false.

For instance, you can attempt to prove that the office of the pope is not biblical, or calling others father is not biblical, etc.

Here are the forum rules:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=13977.0

[Bon Voyage]

But, the posted site referred to the "religious organization" of other forum members (namely those who are Catholic) as "Antichrist" (which I believe to be along the same lines as "Satanic").

So if I sincerely believe the Pope is the Antichrist, and I share my beliefs here; I am in violation of the forum rules?

In my opinion, providing you show a lot of scripture to back up your claims about the office of the pope, and it is done in a courteous manner, I don't even see it violating rule 1.2

However, if you were to target a specific person, rather than a position, it could get dicey.

[CSloan]

Calm down.  You may not question the salvation of others who claim Christ on this forum who would fit the description given in rule 6.  You may, however, with scriptural backing, show certain doctrines to be false.

For instance, you can attempt to prove that the office of the pope is not biblical, or calling others father is not biblical, etc.

Here are the forum rules:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=13977.0

In my opinion, providing you show a lot of scripture to back up your claims about the office of the pope, and it is done in a courteous manner, I don't even see it violating rule 1.2

However, if you were to target a specific person, rather than a position, it could get dicey.

So my threads removal clearly has nothing to do with my post.

I never questioned anyones salvation, nor did I target anyone; these are all strawmen.

You are just censoring my post because someone didn't like it.

That is bigotry.

[Definition of bigot - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[Bon Voyage]

Calm down.  You may not question the salvation of others who claim Christ on this forum who would fit the description given in rule 6.  You may, however, with scriptural backing, show certain doctrines to be false.

For instance, you can attempt to prove that the office of the pope is not biblical, or calling others father is not biblical, etc.

Here are the forum rules:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=13977.0

In my opinion, providing you show a lot of scripture to back up your claims about the office of the pope, and it is done in a courteous manner, I don't even see it violating rule 1.2

However, if you were to target a specific person, rather than a position, it could get dicey.

So my threads removal clearly has nothing to do with my post.

I never questioned anyones salvation, nor did I target anyone; these are all strawmen.

You are just censoring my post because someone didn't like it.

That is bigotry.

[Definition of bigot - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I didn't do anything to you at all.  Admin has banned folks for getting like this with the moderators before.  DCR was trying to be fair and apply the rules fairly.  Not all the moderators have agreed with him, but to claim this is bigotry and censorship is to be unfair to the moderators.

[CSloan]

I didn't do anything to you at all.  Admin has banned folks for getting like this with the moderators before.  DCR was trying to be fair and apply the rules fairly.  Not all the moderators have agreed with him, but to claim this is bigotry and censorship is to be unfair to the moderators.

So now your threatening to ban me, or have me banned?

For what, stating my opinion?

How is that fair?

If I feel like this is bigotry or censorship, am I not allowed so speak that?

Isn't that the very premise of censorship?

If you think I'm being unfair you should perhaps look at this from my perspective.

[Bon Voyage]

I didn't do anything to you at all.  Admin has banned folks for getting like this with the moderators before.  DCR was trying to be fair and apply the rules fairly.  Not all the moderators have agreed with him, but to claim this is bigotry and censorship is to be unfair to the moderators.

So now your threatening to ban me, or have me banned?

Nope.  Just letting you know what has happened to some folks who became a little unglued in the past.

For what, stating my opinion?

You could voice your opinion without making it sound like all the moderators are bigots who are out to censor.  If you feel you have been wronged, take it up with Admin.  Like I said before, there is moderator disagreement on this issue.  However, I am telling you plainly, this was not done to make you upset.  It was done by a moderator to try and follow the board rules.

How is that fair?

How is it fair to accuse the moderators (plural) of bigotry and censorship?

If I feel like this is bigotry or censorship, am I not allowed so speak that?

Absolutely.

Isn't that the very premise of censorship?

We censor posts in accordance with the board rules.  If you have a problem with the board rules, please send Admin a message.

If you think I'm being unfair you should perhaps look at this from my perspective.

Believe me, I am.  You cannot see moderator discussions, and some moderators do not necessarily disagree with some of what was posted in your link.

[CSloan]

Fine, if this is the way it is; then so be it.

But I disagree with the way my post was said to be a violation of the rules, when it clearly isn't. I disagree with how unpopular opinions are squelched to appease the few. And I disagree with how I am not allowed to voice my views, or discuss this topic without being intimidated and threatened.

Just close this topic if you have nothing more to say, cause neither do I.

[Bon Voyage]

Fine, if this is the way it is; then so be it.

But I disagree with the way my post was said to be a violation of the rules, when it clearly isn't. I disagree with how unpopular opinions are squelched to appease the few. And I disagree with how I am not allowed to voice my views, or discuss this topic without being intimidated and threatened.

If you feel that strongly, please contact Admin. 

[kensington]

Hmmm... so then when a topic is closed or removed, we can go ahead and post to this topic,  where they are trying to deal kindly with the matter, and give our "very important" thoughts on it?

It seems to over ride what the moderators have done, and says, I will post to this topic, regardless of what they have said. Doesn't it?

So then, are moderators obsolete?  Or just less on the totem pole to those who have an "important" thing to say?     Anyone?

[CSloan]

Hmmm... so then when a topic is closed or removed, we can go ahead and post to this topic,  where they are trying to deal kindly with the matter, and give our "very important" thoughts on it?

It seems to over ride what the moderators have done, and says, I will post to this topic, regardless of what they have said. Doesn't it?

So then, are moderators obsolete?  Or just less on the totem pole to those who have an "important" thing to say?     Anyone?

Or do moderators just pick and choose what is a rule violation and what isn't?

Like this same topic was posted by a moderator before without rebuke.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=10212.msg182767#msg182767

Thanks for your wonderful insights.

[kensington]

I wasn't talking about you. I know you were trying to iron out what happened to your thread, I support that 100%.  I really do.

I was inferring to the post where Blithering... came in and posted what he wanted to say to the topic that was removed.

I'm sorry, but I've posted on many websites, and I find that to be a very condenscending attitude towards mods who are put in place to do a job. Most are volunteers who care about the site.  I really think if my child had done that I would have spanked him.

If I were a mod, I would have deleted that, and he probably would have been warned about it.  But, I am not. Which is fine.   

It has nothing to do with your crusade for your topic at all.  It makes the situation worse for the moderator who is trying to discuss with you and show you reason. It's almost mocking in my humble opinion. 

Shouldn't it be that when a topic is closed or removed, that until the matter is resolved, then no one should come in and post "to the closed topic"?  I'm just saying.

[kensington]

Please understand CSloan, It was not about the topic for me.  I cannot say why that thread was allowed and yours wasn't. I am not a mod, and I didn't see your thread.

I watched that link... No comment.  Out of fairness to you and the mods on this thread.

God Bless.

[DCR]

Hmmm... so then when a topic is closed or removed, we can go ahead and post to this topic,  where they are trying to deal kindly with the matter, and give our "very important" thoughts on it?

It seems to over ride what the moderators have done, and says, I will post to this topic, regardless of what they have said. Doesn't it?

So then, are moderators obsolete?  Or just less on the totem pole to those who have an "important" thing to say?     Anyone?

Or do moderators just pick and choose what is a rule violation and what isn't?

Like this same topic was posted by a moderator before without rebuke.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=10212.msg182767#msg182767

Thanks for your wonderful insights.

The above link was posted two years ago, perhaps even before the rules we have in place were formally stated as they are now.  If that's the case, we would have a kind of statute of limitations issue anyway, ISTM, if the rule as it is currently stated was not in effect at the time.  And, that was before I was ever a moderator on this site anyway.  I don't recall the date, but I believe the admin has only posted the rules you see in the Forum Issues area in the last year or so, if memory serves.  That can be verified, I'm sure.  In any case, worrying about the possibility that a rule hasn't been enforced consistently in the past is no basis for not enforcing it now.

Thank you for understanding, kensington.

[janine]

Since this thread has turned into

"What the moderators did to me when I wanted to provoke discussion about the Catholic Church and the Antichrist", rather than

"Catholics and the Antichrist slideshow",

Maybe the thread title ought to be changed a bit.

[CSloan]

I'm sorry Janine if you feel I'm taking this too seriously, but I think this whole thing was pretty unfair.

I never directed anything at anyone, and it has been postulated for years that the Pope is or will be the Antichrist. So now it seems that this isn't a place where views like that can be shared.

It never used to be like this.

[normfromga]

If I may interject, if equating the Papacy with the Antichrist were to banned totally, we would probably have to ban nearly every Protestant sermon or essay on the subject written before 1820.

[We would probably have to take a critical look at Stone or Campbell's writings too, if they hadn't already accepted various millennialist positions.]