Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 20:52:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 8, 2011, at 18:14:01
> > > Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
>
>
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...It is not supportive...].
> > Thank you for posting your opinion of this situation here.
>
> I think you pin-pointed a contradiction inherent in this website's policy regarding the language allowable on its Faith forum.
>
> > You say that you want to think about posting that. Could you post here what you need to think about before you decide as to if you will post that it is your opinion that the statement in question is not supportive?
>
> I think I would rather speak more generally and less specifically regarding the posted content that appears to be discordant with the posting policy as described by this website's owner and moderator.
>
> > If you could, then I could respond to you here and perhaps clarify some things that might be preventing you from posting that in the thread in question.
>
> I think we both know how contentious discourse regarding religion can be. I am not prepared to enter into a conversation regarding specific religious doctrines. I think you have been exquisitely specific in identifying one point of contention between two religions. I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible. I guess I don't want to spend the time and energy locating mines on the Faith board and detonating each one of them. It would be easier to just shut the whole thing down.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible...].
What can be seen is what is visible and it is plainly visible to you as you post here that you see it.
But it is not the visiblity that I am concerned about here. What I am concerned about is that other members in a great number have not posted in that thread to:
A. say that the statement in question is or is not supportive
B. asking for Mr. Hsiung to respond to my request to post there saying as to if or if not he considers tthe statement in question supportive or not.
Those two things could go a long way IMHO to determine if or if not the community members have an interest or not in preventing some others from thinking that the Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus, can not have forgiveness and eternal life. That could be taken that the 6,000,000 Jews from 1933 to 1945 that were murdered are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question and believe that the God that they cherish has a plan for then that includes forgivness and eternal life without them accepting the claim in question.
Now when people reading here that take mind-altering drugs read the post in question, I think that there is the potential for some to think that since a psychiatrist allows it to be posted as {OK}, while a Jewish poster is prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to him, they could be indoctrinated to think that Jews are inferior to those that accept the claim in question and then target a Jew to murder, or target a person of the Islamic faith to murder or target anyone that does not accept the claim for the claim states that {only}(redacted by respondent)Jesus. They could even be mass-murderers. Do you not all know that the historical record shows that there were those that orchestrated mass-murder that took amphetamines and other mind-altering drugs?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1000678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1001959.html