posted September 16, 2012 03:01 PM            

In any event I'd still like to hear Regardes's thoughts and opinions on the matter of her addressing a member directly in future, instead of requesting that a thread be closed. Because I really feel that other members should not be deprived of an ongoing conversation if it is just one or two members being anti topic. So I hope Regardes will still respond to my posts.

As for what you've said about the issue having been resolved, then I can hopefully take it to mean that henceforth there will be no more anti-any-religion statements and no more disrespect of members? And if there is, then said member will be asked to refrain rather than the thread be closed?

If I've understood this correctly then I'm relieved and feel confident that this will not happen any more.

So then, if Regardes agrees ... since I don't want to undermine her authority as Mod in any way ... would you be agreeable to re-opening iQ's thread so that people can continue to express themselves (without any bashing) and others can continue to learn?

iQ's threads and posts are always very thought provoking and I for one always look forward to what he has to say because I know I'll be made to think from a different perspective.

Re-opening of his thread will allow that learning process to continue for me as well as others (a lot of people love his posts).

Thank you for considering my request.

*keeping my fingers ... and toes ... crossed in the hope that you'll say yes, provided of course that Regardes is also agreeable*

posted September 16, 2012 04:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
When a string is locked, the convo is terminated, so no response is expected.

---

posted September 16, 2012 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Randall, I'm not sure if your post is addressed to me or Lei_Kuei.

In any event I'd still like to hear Regardes's thoughts and opinions on the matter of her addressing a member directly in future, instead of requesting that a thread be closed. Because I really feel that other members should not be deprived of an ongoing conversation if it is just one or two members being anti topic. So I hope Regardes will still respond to my posts.

As for what you've said about the issue having been resolved, then I can hopefully take it to mean that henceforth there will be no more anti-any-religion statements and no more disrespect of members? And if there is, then said member will be asked to refrain rather than the thread be closed?

If I've understood this correctly then I'm relieved and feel confident that this will not happen any more.

So then, if Regardes agrees ... since I don't want to undermine her authority as Mod in any way ... would you be agreeable to re-opening iQ's thread so that people can continue to express themselves (without any bashing) and others can continue to learn?

iQ's threads and posts are always very thought provoking and I for one always look forward to what he has to say because I know I'll be made to think from a different perspective.

Re-opening of his thread will allow that learning process to continue for me as well as others (a lot of people love his posts).

Thank you for considering my request.

*keeping my fingers ... and toes ... crossed in the hope that you'll say yes, provided of course that Regardes is also agreeable*

---

I'm going to keep this short so as not to derail.

I do think that your idea about asking someone to refrain is an interesting one, though of course Randall is the boss so he gets the final say.

I really want this place to be welcoming and inviting. I'm trying my best to strike a balance between openness and civility, which isn't easy. I don't want to be the morality police who censors everything, but, at the same time, I also don't want to let things get out of hand to the point where people are uncomfortable. I'd rather nip problems in the bud. I hope that people who are on the side of being more open/less civil will be patient with me as I try to figure this out. I am bound to slip along the way, but I am trying my best. Randall is a great advisor and I hope to learn from him and other mods (and non-mods as well) and get to equilibrium.

Whenever I go on here and picture us all talking, I imagine us all in a quiet little coffeehouse or cabin on an autumn night, sitting by a fire, with some coffee or tea, and just spiritedly but very respectfully discussing things and learning. When things go too far, it destroys that kind of atmosphere. Often, it's how something is said rather than what is said that is problematic for me--not always, but usually, that's the case.

posted September 16, 2012 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Whenever I go on here and picture us all talking, I imagine us all in a quiet little coffeehouse or cabin on an autumn night, sitting by a fire, with some coffee or tea, and just spiritedly but very respectfully discussing things and learning. When things go too far, it destroys that kind of atmosphere. Often, it's how something is said rather than what is said that is problematic for me--not always, but usually, that's the case.

---

That is a good model to follow for being a mod.

posted September 16, 2012 06:54 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted September 16, 2012 07:00 PM            

I realize that your responsibility as a Mod is not easy. A non-Mod member gets to just stroll in, have their say and leave, while you as a Mod, have to find a balance between expressing yourself in your posts as a member, plus monitoring a bunch of different personalities with different perceptions on different things.

Like I said earlier, nothing of what I said is a criticism of your performance as Mod. I think you really are doing a good job for all of us, even though that appreciation is not always forthcoming by us. I think I have a pretty good sense of where you're coming from and its from a good place.

I understand and agree that unpleasantness should be nipped in the bud. And I appreciate your considering speaking, in future, directly to any member, Mod or non-Mod, if/when a situation arises. Again, I'm reminded of the effectiveness of this approach in the Fundamentalism thread. I'm sure you'll agree with me on this score. In other forums I've seen Mods in their forums correct other non-forum Mods and the situation gets resolved easily and quickly.

For me, what is being said is as important as the how of it.

Also, I'm not disputing the closing of iQ's thread. Like I said it was out of hand pretty early on. However, now with the reassurance from Randall in his above post, I'm confidant everyone is clear on what is expected.

Under these changed circumstances, would you have any objection to iQ's thread being re-opened? Of course the final say is still with Randall, but I'm asking you first as I don't want to undermine your authority as a Mod, and also because you'd requested the closing. If you agree, then it'll be up to Randall to also agree before it can be opened.

Thanks again for this consideration, and also for taking the time to discuss this matter so openly. As I said on the Fundamentalism thread, your conscientiousness gets my trust vote

posted September 17, 2012 01:03 AM            

However, the manner in which the State so easily co-opts quite willing spiritual leaders to advocate for wars is somewhat one of my disappointments with organized religions.

posted September 17, 2012 05:13 AM            

if it would help, and with Randall's permission, I could make a guidelines thread for this forum, if it would be helpful

**

posted September 17, 2012 07:14 AM            

And as a nerd, I have researched nearly every scripture and historical research archive that exists on the web. This allows me quick access to data and helps in making objective assessments.

When anyone chooses to make an uninformed judgment without statistical references, my reply is always with facts showing the contrary. Wherever I post on the net, statistics are the best ally.

My request to other Moderators is that try to avoid locking threads where Irrefutable Statistics are written, even if countered by uncouth, biased and judgmental troll type comments. Millions of readers will see the Truth from the Statistics.

We should not hide the crimes committed by wicked folk in any religion in the name of that said religion. To develop True Faith from within, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thanks

posted September 17, 2012 08:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
When anyone chooses to make an uninformed judgment without statistical references, my reply is always with facts showing the contrary. Wherever I post on the net, statistics are the best ally.

My request to other Moderators is that try to avoid locking threads where Irrefutable Statistics are written, even if countered by uncouth, biased and judgmental troll type comments. Millions of readers will see the Truth from the Statistics.

---

Yes, this is the only reason why I'd asked for the thread to be re-opened.

At least now (from what Randall has said), the uncouth and biased comments will stop. And if they don't ... well I don't see the point in closing a high minded thread just because an uninformed member decides to "gatecrash." That's like herding all the sheep back into a barn and locking the doors even before they're done grazing ... all because one of them strayed. Imo a problem is usually taken care of most effectively when the root of the issue is addressed, not by penalizing everyone else.

Anyway, that is all I have to say, other than thanking everyone for allowing me to bring up this matter. I appreciate everyone's time spent.

posted September 17, 2012 08:54 AM            

Suffice to say that personal attacks are not acceptable, whether one thinks they're right or not. They are just not OK, and that's something that I want to stop happening here. It makes things unpleasant and uncomfortable for everyone. I know things get heated, but please, remember that you are discussing ideas. You are not (should not) be fighting each other.

And, again, tone matters a lot. It makes a huge difference in how people receive your message.

Lastly, the goal of this forum is NOT to get people to all believe the same thing. It is NOT to prove one "truth". The goal is to discuss different ideas peacefully and with respect. It is NOT to push one agenda. It is to allow people to disagree civilly and still like each other even if they don't have the same beliefs, and not to impose one set of beliefs on all. It's for people to learn about other beliefs without tearing people down or demeaning them.

posted September 17, 2012 09:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Faith, I just read the link you posted. It's excellently written, very heartfelt, detailed and comprehensive.

I think the entire essay is an eye-opener for anyone in doubt about whether war is necessary.

This part in particular, is worth quoting--
.
[b]"Let us at least do so much that if ever our country engages in another war, we shall feel no share of the guilt. Let us each do so much that if we should ever walk over a battle-field, stunned with the groans and curses of the wounded, and horror-struck at the infernal spectacle, we can feel that we aid all we could to avert such an evil. Let us clear ourselves of blame. No one of us can put a stop to war. But we can help stop it – and combined and persevering effort will stop it."
.

I like the promise in these words, because in war no one wins. Everyone loses.

And I agree with you that this is an important topic.

[/B]

---

Thank you so much for taking the time to look at that, Linda!

posted September 17, 2012 09:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
I pride myself on being an avid mathematician.

And as a nerd, I have researched nearly every scripture and historical research archive that exists on the web. This allows me quick access to data and helps in making objective assessments.

When anyone chooses to make an uninformed judgment without statistical references, my reply is always with facts showing the contrary. Wherever I post on the net, statistics are the best ally.

My request to other Moderators is that try to avoid locking threads where Irrefutable Statistics are written, even if countered by uncouth, biased and judgmental troll type comments. Millions of readers will see the Truth from the Statistics.

We should not hide the crimes committed by wicked folk in any religion in the name of that said religion. To develop True Faith from within, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thanks

---

IQ, agree. I was taught it is not necessarily the one being addressed but the hungry heart lurking and reading is who we speak to the loudest.

posted September 17, 2012 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
All I'll say on it for myself is if Christianity didn't wage a war of terrorism, torture, mass murder, and repression for over a thousand years then Christianity would not be a major world religion today.

---

So true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Even today there are all too many Christians with those ethics best abandoned to the dark ages.

---

They just don't see it. I think they are just susceptible to complacency when they assume that they are in tight with Jesus, who is surveilling their thoughts and listening to their prayers. Surely if they were advocating genocide,Jesus would let them know? He loves them. He'd protect them from being that bad.

Just like he protected them from having slaves, torturing heretics, and so on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I am genuinely curious if the snipers feel anything when they notice the Bible being quoted (comfort or discomfort or bemusement or what?).

---

I would imagine that many of the Christians are just further cemented in their delusion.
The ones who snap out of it may very well become a suicide statistic. It's just not a good place to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
And I wonder if it would make a difference if the Bible verses on the sniper scopes were like "thou shall not kill" or "do unto others as you'd have them do onto you."

---

I doubt it. Remember, these good soldiers of ours (good = USA), they are only killing people who are a threat...they are preventing killing from taking place. So the people they are shooting should have heard "Thou shalt not kill." It's good to be reminded of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Ah well, this is for you Faith, I'm sure you'll like this:
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html

---

posted September 17, 2012 10:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
IQ, agree. I was taught it is not necessarily the one being addressed but the hungry heart lurking and reading is who we speak to the loudest.

---

Absolutely!! Couldn't have said this better myself. What a beautiful way to put it!!

posted September 17, 2012 10:04 AM            

You have a great thread going here!!

posted September 17, 2012 10:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
@ Faith,

You have a great thread going here!!

---

posted September 17, 2012 10:37 AM            

quote:

---

Hitler's speech before the passing of the Enabling Act

In his speech before the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed, Adolf Hitler speaks out:

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The Government will treat all other denominations with objective and impartial justice. It cannot, however, tolerate allowing membership of a certain denomination or of a certain race being used as a release from all common legal obligations, or as a blank cheque for unpunishable behavior, or for the toleration of crimes. [The national Government will allow and confirm to the Christian denominations the enjoyment of their due influence in schools and education.] And it will be concerned for the sincere cooperation between Church and State. The struggle against the materialistic ideology and for the erection of a true people's community (Volksgemeinschaft) serves as much the interests of the German nation as of our Christian faith. ...The national Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See. ...The rights of the churches will not be curtailed; their position in relation to the State will not be changed.[4]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

quote:

---

The German word for an enabling act is Ermächtigungsgesetz. It usually refers to the enabling act of March 23, 1933, which became a cornerstone of Adolf Hitler's seizure of power.

---

posted September 17, 2012 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

The Reichskonkordat is the most controversial of several concordats agreed between various states and the Vatican during the reign of Pope Pius XI and is frequently discussed in works that deal with the rise of Hitler in the early 1930s and the Holocaust. The concordat has been described as giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies.

---

posted September 17, 2012 10:49 AM            

It seems to have been scrubbed from the internet now (copyright issues?), but I highly recommend tracking down A Devout Meditation in Memory of Adolf Eichmann. It was the first essay of his that I read.

Edited to add: It ends thus:

quote:

---

Even Christians can shake off their sentimental prejudices about charity, and become sane like Eichmann. They can even cling to a certain set of Christian formulas, and fit them into a Totalist Ideology. Let them talk about justice, charity, love, and the rest. These words have not stopped some sane men from acting very sanely and cleverly in the past.... No, Eichmann was sane. The generals and fighters on both sides, in World War II, the ones who carried out the total destruction of entire cities, these were the sane ones. Those who have invented and developed atomic bombs, thermonuclear bombs, missiles; who have planned the strategy of the next war; who have evaluated the various possibilities of using bacterial and chemical agents: these are not the crazy people, they are the sane people. The ones who coolly estimate how many millions of victims can he considered expendable in a nuclear war, I presume they do all right with the Rorschach ink blots too. On the other hand, you will probably find that the pacifists and the ban-the-bomb people are, quite seriously, just as we read in Time, a little crazy. I am beginning to realize that "sanity" is no longer a value or an end in itself. The "sanity" of modern man is about as useful to him as the huge bulk and muscles of the dinosaur. If he were a little less sane, a little more doubtful, a little more aware of his absurdities and contradictions, perhaps there might be a possibility of his survival. But if he is sane, too sane ... perhaps we must say that in a society like ours the worst insanity is to be totally without anxiety, totally "sane."

---