0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
The rule says:QuoteThe site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration.
CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.
1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed. Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted?
What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail?
If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so?
Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.I would ask everyone interested in this topic to note that nothing is mentioned about such language. It permeates CHAT. Aggressive, insulting and demeaning comments are directed at me from several including a moderator and all of it is against the rules. Just look at the last few weeks (actually, it has been going on since the second day I joined this organization) in CHAT on topics related to God. Just read what is communicated. I have been hounded, repeatedly, by several without one word of warning by a mod. Is there a double standard, especially when a moderator joins in? when more than a few continually engage in such behavior including a moderator?The rules state we are not to evangelize a pet theory. I asked, are we evangelizing if we are not discussing a pet theory but well-formed, established, firmly held opinions? This was not addressed. Advertising? How are we to discuss a topic and express our point of view when doing so is classified as advertising? Others promote hatred, negativity, and misinformation against spiritual content and those who present such information constantly. Isn't that evangelizing/advertising? Their tone is often pure delight at mocking others. I have asked a couple of the offenders to stop and informed them I would not respond to them for calling me a liar. As a result, they have accused me of refusing to engage in discussion.A moderator told me I don't have the reasoning/verbal skills worthy of his interacting with me."I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colinOne person left a link for someone else and then accused me of ignoring it for fear I'd be proven wrong. When challenged, the person said the link was on a public page. I don't respond to everything on every page. My spirituality has nothing to do with any religion. I don't belong to any religion. Where is the respect demanded of all of us by Chris?
One way to address proof of God
Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God. So why are you simply complaining about the moderation? Get on with the evidence.
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomQuote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.That seems unlikely.Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?Even if it was; so what?The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
Quote from: duffyd on 09/05/2020 14:08:19Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th centuryBy whomQuote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.That seems unlikely.Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?Even if it was; so what?The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. BoredIs anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
Appeal! I asked for clarification. And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?
Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"? I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.