Banned from Christianity

Fanny Cradock

Gareth, I believe that the mods of the Christianity forum have been more than patient with you. On a couple of occasions you have been politely asked to tone it down and change the record. You chose to ignore these requests.

I would encourage you to focus on the positive aspects of your faith. Most of the Christians I know speak of the positive effect that Jesus has in their lives today. All these things you post about don't really factor in their day to day faith or their message to others. Take your time off (the ban isn't that long) and come back to the forum refreshed.

Winters

You bunch of religious nutjobs.

R0ot

I respect people and the beliefs they have until they step over the line and stop expressing their opinions and try and state them as facts instead.

Its like the PI thread that had the girl posting about how you didn't need any form of protection during sex if you don't want to get pregnant (found it), now most people would read it and go "idiot" but there's always those few naive people that might take it as truth, the same kind of people that read wikipedia and instantly believe its all 100% fact!

Karl Hungus

You know, this ban doesn't sit too well with me. Nor does the whole "He singles himself out" or "He opens himself up for abuse" thing either. Are we really justifying abuse because someone is an easy target? Because that's what it sounds like to me, and it shouldn't matter if a person singles themselves out through their beliefs, abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.

And honestly, what the hell was Gareth banned for? For discussing his religion? Having read the thread in question, it seems perfectly valid and on topic; the ideas of 'worshipping money' being evil is ingrained in a very many religions. It's theorising upon christian doctrine. Sure, people think it's conspiracy theory nonsense, but that's besides the point, because the Christianity forum is there to provide discussion of this kind.

What I find even more disturbing is to tell Gareth to focus opun "More positive" aspects of his religion. This exemplifies something I particularly loathe about modern religion and it's followers; the picking and chosing of certain aspects of religious doctrine, and dismissing the rest. Like it or not, satan and the antichrist are part of the christian faith, and if you're going to ban people for discussing that, you might as well just ban everyone else, because what the hell is the forum for? It's like me banning someone from the music section for liking bands a,b and c, and telling them to come back when they like bands x, y and z. The forum should be more than just "Hey, isn't Jesus great? Praise the lord!" "+1"

I'm feeling as if this ban is one motivated by a comfort that Gareth has disturbed:

Asiaprod wrote:

Its people like you who in fact do more damage to religion and to those that do follow this faith.

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

seamus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Nor does the whole "He singles himself out" or "He opens himself up for abuse" thing either. Are we really justifying abuse because someone is an easy target? Because that's what it sounds like to me, and it shouldn't matter if a person singles themselves out through their beliefs, abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.

if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

You get where this is going.

Fanny Cradock

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

Asiaprod is an Buddhist. I don't see that he has any pro-Christian agenda in the matter.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What I find even more disturbing is to tell Gareth to focus opun "More positive" aspects of his religion. This exemplifies something I particularly loathe about modern religion and it's followers; the picking and chosing of certain aspects of religious doctrine, and dismissing the rest. Like it or not, satan and the antichrist are part of the christian faith, and if you're going to ban people for discussing that, you might as well just ban everyone else, because what the hell is the forum for? It's like me banning someone from the music section for liking bands a,b and c, and telling them to come back when they like bands x, y and z. The forum should be more than just "Hey, isn't Jesus great? Praise the lord!" "+1"

I would suggest that that the 'Buddy Christ' image that you so disdain - dismissing it as some new appendage to Christianity - has always been integral to the faith. If you read the Gospels this is exactly the relationship that Jesus inspires.

I have no problem with people discussing Satan - it's not the case of us trying to erase Satan and clean up Christianity (and you would have to ask yourself why a non-Christian would be interested in doing that). However, when the majority of posts - no matter the topic - have this reoccurring theme, and private intervention from the mods has been consistently ignored, it seems that a ban is justified.

--amadeus--

I wouldn't support the ban on the grounds of the content he posted in Christianity. It was mainly on topic (if a little from the lunatic fringe).

However I do understand that the ban is more for his posting style. His threads tended to be:

- G37 - "Satan is coming"
- Everyone - "on what basis?"
- G37 with fingers in ears - "SATAN IS COMING"

- repeat until people stop biting then start a new thread

If he learns to read as well as to write I am sure he'll be welcomed back to the various forums. If he was left unchecked he would have killed the forum off - you can't have a conversation if every thread is hijacked by a troll.

Black Swan

Gareth37 wrote: »

I was banned from Chrisianity.

Excommunicated?

faceman

Excellent post by Karl.

A user should be banned for breaking the rules, not for airing his or her viewpoints, however off the wall they might seem to other people.

GuanYin

Dudess wrote: »

6th, Gareth has told people they're the antichrist (how many antichrists are there?) Do you expect people not to have a go at him after that?

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

javaboy

GuanYin wrote: »

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

You're not the antichrist. You're a very naughty well behaved boy girl!

oscarBravo

faceman wrote: »

A user should be banned for breaking the rules, not for airing his or her viewpoints, however off the wall they might seem to other people.

In Politics we have a rule against soapboxing: constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it. It's disruptive and annoying. Seems to me that's what we're dealing with here.

AnimalRights

GuanYin wrote: »

How blasphemous, I'm the one true antichrist.

I think that was this guy tbh....

Karl Hungus

seamus wrote: »

The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

So? Where is it written that a person must respond to posts before starting a new thread? If people don't like his views, there's an ignore button. I don't see where he's broken any rules with his thread on the Christianity forum.

Fair enough, I'm not a poster on the forum, and I probably don't know the ins and outs. Oscar Bravo raises a good point about soapboxing. So I'm sure there's a lot I'm not privvy to, and how it effects the forum. But it just doesn't seem fair when someone is banned with no rules in place against that. The whole thing with the Celeb forum and JP Liz could be compared, and I think the mods did a fantastic job in the sense that they identified a problem, created rules to curb that problem, and then acted with warnings. It's all a bit too "Ban first and ask questions later."

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.

I did read the whole thread, it's just that it boils my blood to see someone exclaim that a person "Invites it upon themselves"... Sorry, it just brings out the rant in me.

Nevyn

He's not discussing he's preaching for the sole purpose of proselyting which he has admitted to which is against the charter, end of.

christianity charter wrote:

# Crazy fundamentalist bigotry will not be tolerated. Remember, God loves every one of his children.

Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.

He had been doing this over a number of fora and it is not acceptable.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's an absolutely horrible reason to ban someone. "I'm banning you because you make us look bad."

Look, this is all part of your religion, if you're made uncomfortable by the notion that there is more to it than being the trendy mass goer, then Gareth has unwittingly confronted you with something about yourself and your faith. Calling it nonsense? Hell, it's all nonsense as far as I and many others are concerned, but you're calling your own doctrine nonsense.

Honestly, unban the lad immediately, or just rename the forum "Positive aspects of christianity only". You can't simply ban him because his opinion is unpopular, or doesn't reflect the shiny new 'Buddy Christ' image of christian that you want to push. He's on topic, this is 100% related to christianity, and if you don't agree with what he says, then get out your bibles and challenge him on it.

I second your views. There is a bit of a lynch mod mentality on this forum where someone can be singled out and ridiculed no matter what they say.

seamus wrote: »

Did you real the whole thread yet?
Abuse isn't tolerated.
The problem is that when he is challenged, he doesn't respond. Continually. Then he starts another thread, and when challenged, doesn't respond. Then he starts another thread...

You get where this is going.

What's wrong with starting a thread to stimulate a debate or discussion ? Is this void if you don't continue to post in the thread ?

Terry

You're banned from Christianity/
That explains the rantings in AH.

No more religious threads for you there.

You are not allowed to take your agenda to AH just because you have been banned from the forum it belongs in.

As for the banning itself, I can't comment on it because I haven't read the thread in question so I can't comment on it.

Just keep the religious stuff out of AH while you are still banned from Christianity.

Jokes about religion are accepted, but as a Christian, you shouldn't be doing that.

the_syco

Gareth37 wrote: »

I am looking to confirmation as to why I was banned from Chrisianity.

I actually forget why I was banned from there. All I remember about the forum is that if you disagree with any points, you'll most likely get banned.

gramlab

6th wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425054

Obviously mods are dealing with it as it happens but I dont see anyone being told its wrong to single another poster out, its just inferred by the locking and deleting of threads.

I started that thread. It was about how easy it is to troll in that forum, and the lack of response when questions that were asked in threads were answered without any acknowledgement from the people asking the questions. Probably shouldn't have mentioned/hinted at Gareth but his recent threads and posts highlighted my point. If any offence was taken I apologise.

Banning seems a bit strong to me, ignoring would have been my own personal choice. But he did get plenty of advice and warning from the relevant mods.

metrovelvet

You guys should really add a stipulation to all the religion charters that they are for prosletysing and any form of debate which negatively questions said religion will be shut down and the poster banned.

Secondly, there is no Satan forum, unless you count politics as one, nor is there a Judaism forum, so where else is someone supposed to get Old Testament about something?

Nevyn

There are no prosletysing rules in place and no hate mongering rules as well.
Open questioning is allowed, disrespecting beliefs is not allowed unless you are in A&A.

As for questions on the old testement that depends on what the person wants as it is applicable to christianity, islam and the general spirituality forum and has even come up in paganism.

seamus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

So? Where is it written that a person must respond to posts before starting a new thread? If people don't like his views, there's an ignore button. I don't see where he's broken any rules with his thread on the Christianity forum.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

What's wrong with starting a thread to stimulate a debate or discussion ? Is this void if you don't continue to post in the thread ?

If you post a challenge or a question in a thread, and it becomes clear that nobody else holds your position, you have two choices:

1. Respond to other people's points/challenges
2. Let it die.

In this case, Gareth did neither. Instead he continually posted his "challenges" without addressing or listening to the points already made. This doesn't stimulate or start any debate - it simply provides a thread for him to post his crap. That's called "soapboxing". He didn't get initially banned for it. He got warned for it. But kept going anyway.

Where something isn't in the charter, you can still be warned and asked to stop it. It doesn't need to be in the charter.

There's an unwritten rule across the entire site which says that mods can do whatever is necessary to ensure that their forums run with the minimum of disruption. It's not possible nor wise to write every single do and don't into charters.

faceman

seamus wrote: »

If you post a challenge or a question in a thread, and it becomes clear that nobody else holds your position, you have two choices:

1. Respond to other people's points/challenges
2. Let it die.

In this case, Gareth did neither. Instead he continually posted his "challenges" without addressing or listening to the points already made. This doesn't stimulate or start any debate - it simply provides a thread for him to post his crap. That's called "soapboxing". He didn't get initially banned for it. He got warned for it. But kept going anyway.

Where something isn't in the charter, you can still be warned and asked to stop it. It doesn't need to be in the charter.

There's an unwritten rule across the entire site which says that mods can do whatever is necessary to ensure that their forums run with the minimum of disruption. It's not possible nor wise to write every single do and don't into charters.

I do see your point, and oscarbravo makes a valid point too. Perhaps tightening up on the rules a bit would curb it that bit more?

Some posters should also see that by not ignoring his posts when it becomes clear that he is not interested in discussion they are making it worse.

PDN

metrovelvet wrote: »

You guys should really add a stipulation to all the religion charters that they are for prosletysing and any form of debate which negatively questions said religion will be shut down and the poster banned.

Secondly, there is no Satan forum, unless you count politics as one, nor is there a Judaism forum, so where else is someone supposed to get Old Testament about something?

We can hardly add such a stipulation since it is not true. There is a bucketful of negative questioning that goes on in the Christianity forum, much more so than would be allowed in some other fora.

Gareth broke the charter of the forum and continued to do so after he was politely requested via PM to stop.

Dades

Hobbes wrote: »

Surprised he isn't banned from Atheist forum.

He is, for the thread that began like this:

I think its very clear that the majority of atheists are young immature boys, rebelling against anything that is good and looking for some attention.

He was warned previously to contribute something other than placard proclamations, and this was the next thread. We communicated via PM and were all clear about stuff.


I think those here defending him mean well, but are obviously not as familiar with his history as the forum mods whose job it is to read every post made in the forum.

Bob the Builder

Dades wrote: »

He is, for the thread that began like this:

LOL. what a description of himself.

Can we just siteban him. Please.

He's pissing all over this site with stupid taglines that are obviously copied from the bible. He makes me glad I have up mass, and even more glad that I didn't listen to the bible.

Schuhart

Dades wrote: »

I think those here defending him mean well, but are obviously not as familiar with his history as the forum mods whose job it is to read every post made in the forum.

I haven’t been following Gareth’s brief posting career as he lost novelty value pretty quick. But I think you are right that the disquiet is because the few examples don't look dreadful.

I mean, Marx said atheism reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man. In fairness, Marx would hardly be banned.

Now, I think regular posters in the religion forums know that folk like Asiaprod, Dades and PDN actually do facilitate free ranging discussion. So, to be honest, I am just taking it on trust that this banning was necessary.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Schuhart wrote: »

Marx would hardly be banned.

I doubt that very much
There's not very many Marxist opinions around here.



I suppose Garreth got the ban for pissing off the mods . Not much chance of a ban being reversed no matter how many people disagree. We'll see what stance he takes when he's unbanned.

Thaedydal wrote: »

He's not discussing he's preaching for the sole purpose of proselyting which he has admitted to which is against the charter, end of.



He had been doing this over a number of fora and it is not acceptable.

Is there not a difference between preaching and "Crazy fundamentalist bigotry" ? I think there's a difference between trolling and posing a controversial question to stimulate debate.

Crash

Schuhart wrote: »

Now, I think regular posters in the religion forums know that folk like Asiaprod, Dades and PDN actually do facilitate free ranging discussion. So, to be honest, I am just taking it on trust that this banning was necessary.

Hell, I barely read those forums and thats long been my opinion. They are among the fairest and most even handed i've seen on boards, and if I swayed either way long enough to care, I'd have a very, VERY hard time doing their job. I think in a lot of cases accusing them of bias is very unfair. But hey, welcome to feedback.

oscarBravo

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I think there's a difference between trolling and posing a controversial question to stimulate debate.

Me too. One of the yardsticks I use to distinguish them is: to what extent does the person posing the controversial question engage in debate? If the answer is "not at all", then question answered.