Christianity forum needs at least 1 Catholic mod!

Nevyn

StealthRolex wrote: »

was it like this during the Reformation
:pac: :pac: :pac:

Well no ones lost thier head, yet.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

This link might answer some questions as to why the Christianity forum might be so antagonistic towards Catholics. link

It doesn't answer any questions. It just creates a further question as to why you would post a link that has nothing to do with the Christianity forum on boards.ie, nothing to do with any of the moderators, and serves no purpose other than to infame sectarian controversy.

ISAW

Cabaal wrote: »

Your argument is weak,

More importantly its insulting to anyone affected on so many levels, both you and me know the Vatican has a whole was aware of the situation.

Anyone I'm going off topic here, this isn't the point of this thread at all.

No it isnt. You are referring to the Vatican knowing about something. There are 2 billion catholics and 700 vatican administrators. I would guess the whole 700 didnt know about everything going on in every Diocese. it is hard enough for half a million civil servants to administer 4 million Irish people and the whole Civil service know about every issue.

And the poiunt was not about the Vatican it was about moderators on boards following the rules and upholding the law and not acting on "boards is a reflection of Ireland".

If Ireland is racist or biased that is no justification for mods on boards to mirror Ireland!

It is not valid to argue "we are only representing public opinion" from a moderation/rules point of view.

ISAW

Thaedydal wrote: »

Again the demographic of the country (as skewed as that stats on religion are cos the census is crap) is not the demographic of the site or the christianity forum. Demanding a catholic mod based on the population of the country wont' work.

Which directly contradicts the idea that "boards directly represents Irish society"

ISAW

Thaedydal wrote: »

Oh please enlighten me?

You agruement on populations stats is meaningless if it was done that way there wouldn't be a paganism forum so you need to re think that.

It doesn't' have a jewish forum, does that make it anti jewish?

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=74640

Note other stated religions are 140,000 Pagans are in this bunch.

When you add protestants and Jews together and leave out Church of Ireland you got less than 40,000

Catholics ~ 3.7 million!

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

It doesn't answer any questions. It just creates a further question as to why you would post a link that has nothing to do with the Christianity forum on boards.ie, nothing to do with any of the moderators, and serves no purpose other than to infame sectarian controversy.

Is it not a valid non-catholic website? It has been cited in posts in the Christianity forum as being a valid source. It is an evangelical website designed to explain Catholicism to Catholics from a Protestant perspective by a former Catholic turned Reformed Baptist who says this on his bio

Some may feel that I misunderstand or misrepresent the Catholic religion. My answer is that I know Catholicism from personal experience; and for many years I continue to study Catholic literature - the creeds, councils, decrees, the catechism and the modern apologists. I do my best to represent catholic doctrine accurately.

My criticism of some aspects of Roman Catholic religion is not an end in itself. In everything, I want to present the biblical truth and lead people to Christ. He saved me and gave me new life. Praise his name! I pray that you too would find salvation and rest at the foot of the cross and worship Christ the Lord.

If you think he is being sectarian or fueling sectarian controversy feel free to email him at justforcatholics@yahoo.com

Call it PM feedback

I'm sure he would appreciate any constructive criticism from a fellow non-Catholic [edit - really bad typo - sincere apologies]

To my mind it sums up exactly what many non-Catholics and apostasized catholics think of Catholics and goes a long way towards explaining the attitudes of some if not the majority of non-Catholics in the Christianity forum.

It is presented as an argument as to why there should be either a Catholic Mod or the Mods should enforce impartiality and dump their own prejudices and misconceptions when the have a Mod hat on.

Nevyn

Well then if there were that many active practising catholics in the country then there would be more posting in the christianity forum, but there isn't. Again the forum is not swamped with catholic threads at all so there is not the user base for it.

Has there even been a poll in the christianty forum on it's demographics?

JimiTime

Thaedydal wrote: »

Has there even been a poll in the christianty forum on it's demographics?

I think most of us identify as Christians first and foremost, so such a demographic poll would simply be divisive. In the time we have all been posting in the forum, we pretty much know what everyone else 'is' in terms of denomination. It simply doesn't matter though, as we are all discussing things in terms of Christianity.

sceptre

ISAW wrote: »

Which directly contradicts the idea that "boards directly represents Irish society"

I'm a much bigger fan of "boards reflects Irish society" myself. (although really only in the 1 Corinthians 13:12 sense)

Aside, drop me a PM about your politics ban when you have time. No detail required, just a reminder for me to drop you a PM.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is it not a valid non-catholic website?

What on earth is a "valid non-catholic website"?

It's only validity is that it's something someone posted on the internet. It still has no connection with the Christianity forum or with any moderators. It certainly doesn't reflect the views of the Forum Charter or of any of the moderators.

It has been cited in posts in the Christianity forum as being a valid source.

So now you want moderators not only to read every post (whether they are reported or not) but you expect us to follow every link? It seems to be pretty sectarian - equally as much as some of the sites you have linked to in some of your own posts.

If you think he is being sectarian or fueling sectarian controversy feel free to email him at justforcatholics@yahoo.com

Call it PM feedback

No, I think you are being sectarian and fuelling controversy.

I'm sure he would appreciate any constructive criticism from a fellow non-Christian

Bloody hell! Do you have to wear your bigotry on your sleeve quite so nakedly? So I'm a non-Christian now?

To my mind it sums up exactly what many non-Catholics and apostasized catholics think of Catholics and goes a long way towards explaining the attitudes of some if not the majority of non-Catholics in the Christianity forum.

It may indeed reflect the views of some posters, and they are free to post in the Christianity Forum (as you are) providing that they abide by the Forum Charter.

It is presented as an argument as to why there should be either a Catholic Mod or the Mods should enforce impartiality and dump their own prejudices and misconceptions when the have a Mod hat on.

In that case it a useless argument since it comes nowhere near to the views of any of the moderators. You have been asked to provide evidence to the Admins of any instances where moderators have exercised prejudices or misconceptions when having their mod hats on. Your failure to do so speaks volumes.

sceptre

This discussion is getting a little personal in the past page or two (not all of you but some). Less catty is better, makes your case look better too for what that's worth. Less heat, more light.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Bloody hell! Do you have to wear your bigotry on your sleeve quite so nakedly? So I'm a non-Christian now?

My apologies - I meant non-Catholic - no offence intended.

JimiTime

BTW, I'd just like to show this thread the 'Anti Catholic' mods in operation in the Christianity forum.

Click here, and see PDN's immoderate bias in action. (Warning: May contain sarcasm:)).

I've witnessed lots and lots of threads apart from the one I linked above in which such actions have been taken by the mods. So I move to have the accusations of impartiality to be recinded:)

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

In that case it a useless argument since it comes nowhere near to the views of any of the moderators. You have been asked to provide evidence to the Admins of any instances where moderators have exercised prejudices or misconceptions when having their mod hats on. Your failure to do so speaks volumes.

fair enough - I posted a number of biblical quotations on the subject of contraception (#131) in support of the concept that as God considers children to be a gift the exegesis from "go forth and multiple" and hte other quotations regarding children is that it is good to have children and bad to prevent them.

your response:

The poor logic, twisted reasoning, and tortuous eisegesis you have given us isn't exactly going to win anyone over to your cause.

regardless of the rest of the sentence the term "eisegesis" alone has long been a sectarian term of derogation towards Catholics. While it may be used offensively by ordinary posters it's use by a mod speaks for itself.

I would suggest that the use of derogatory language is evidence of prejudice.

in the same post the sacred vow of celibacy taken by priests is also insulted

The vast majority of those verses (the ones enjoining people to be fruitful) can be used against celibacy just as much as against contraception. In fact a guy like myself (who fathered two kids and then practised birth control) has done much more to populate the earth than a celibate.

in reference to the Papacy #231

You're saying that it doesn't matter if a Pope is a murderous lecher or not, God has still ordained him to rule on how sincere godly Christians should interpret Scripture. Like most right thinking people I find that notion to be repugnant.

when challenged as to what you meant - your response

Originally Posted by StealthRolex
So, are Catholics right thinking people, in your humble opinion?

Yes, which is why most Catholics don't trust the Church to do their interpretation for them. That's why so many of your co-religionists ignore a lot of stuff the Church says.

co-religionists - to me that is a derogatory term.
most catholics - implies apostasy within the Church
both terms used in to convey a sweeping generalization that in the posters opinion most catholics are bad catholics.
there also seems to be a subtle implication that those who do trust the Church and the Pope are not right thinking but that might be reading too much between the lines.

mdebets

StealthRolex wrote: »

in the same post the sacred vow of celibacy taken by priests is also insulted

PDN wrote:

The vast majority of those verses (the ones enjoining people to be fruitful) can be used against celibacy just as much as against contraception. In fact a guy like myself (who fathered two kids and then practised birth control) has done much more to populate the earth than a celibate.

How is this an insult. All PDN was doing is questioning how you can justify celibacy, when you had just provided a multitude of verses that you had interprted as meaning that people should have as many children as possible.
Does this mean that you see any questioning of RCC doctrine as an insult?

StealthRolex

mdebets wrote: »

How is this an insult. All PDN was doing is questioning how you can justify celibacy, when you had just provided a multitude of verses that you had interprted as meaning that people should have as many children as possible.
Does this mean that you see any questioning of RCC doctrine as an insult?

Celibacy is a separate issue and was not under discussion.
He did not tackle the issue of contraception, side stepped into celibacy and as celibacy is part of the vocation to Holy Orders it came across as derogatory.

mdebets

StealthRolex wrote: »

Celibacy is a separate issue and was not under discussion.
He did not tackle the issue of contraception, side stepped into celibacy and as celibacy is part of the vocation to Holy Orders it came across as derogatory.

While celibacy was strictly speaking not under discusion, it needed to be brought up to make an argument.
You were arguing that God demanded from us that people should have as much children as possible and gave some verses as proof of this. From this you deducted that contraception is forbidden, as it against the will of God. PDN just brought up a seccond deduction from the same scriptures (if you interpret them in your way), which would make celibacy against the will of God, as it deprives the people of the children, God demands of them (according to the verses you mentioned). By you only mentioning one interpretation and ignoring the second, even seeing it as an insult, it just shows how you cherry-pick the interpretations you like. By showing this, he proofes your argument wrong, as you can't just cherry-pick what you like and skip above the rest.
You then try to hide behinde accusations of PDN being anti-catholic, just because you don't like his argument.

StealthRolex

mdebets wrote: »

While celibacy was strictly speaking not under discusion, it needed to be brought up to make an argument.
You were arguing that God demanded from us that people should have as much children as possible and gave some verses as proof of this. From this you deducted that contraception is forbidden, as it against the will of God. PDN just brought up a seccond deduction from the same scriptures (if you interpret them in your way), which would make celibacy against the will of God, as it deprives the people of the children, God demands of them (according to the verses you mentioned). By you only mentioning one interpretation and ignoring the second, even seeing it as an insult, it just shows how you cherry-pick the interpretations you like. By showing this, he proofes your argument wrong, as you can't just cherry-pick what you like and skip above the rest.
You then try to hide behinde accusations of PDN being anti-catholic, just because you don't like his argument.

Where did I say anti-catholic?

In my opinion there is prejudice and impartiality but don't go doing a PDN suggesting I called anyone anti-catholic when I did not.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

fair enough - I posted a number of biblical quotations on the subject of contraception (#131) in support of the concept that as God considers children to be a gift the exegesis from "go forth and multiple" and hte other quotations regarding children is that it is good to have children and bad to prevent them.

your response:.

Firstly, you were asked to provide examples of where mods "have exercised prejudices or misconceptions when having their mod hats on". Instead you have ignored that request and have cited examples of where I was posting, not moderating.

You need to understand that mods are chosen because they have an interest in, and knowledge of, the subject of the forum, and as such they are free to air their opinion in a forum just as much as any other poster.

Again, can you please provide evidence for your accusation that mods "have exercised prejudices or misconceptions when having their mod hats on".

regardless of the rest of the sentence the term "eisegesis" alone has long been a sectarian term of derogation towards Catholics. While it may be used offensively by ordinary posters it's use by a mod speaks for itself.

Eisesgesis is where people read their own opinions into the Bible.

I think you're pulling all of our legs if you think that my using the term 'eisegesis' is derogatory, yet you deem it acceptable for you to post the following just a few posts previously in the same thread: The thing is I have and when I compare the Catholic position with that of the protestant one on matters of difference all I can see is that the Catholic position is the true one and the protestant one is a fabrication based on lies, modified scriptural test, misinterpretation and eisgegesis.


Do you see why you are less than convincing when you try to present yourself as an innocent victim?

co-religionists - to me that is a derogatory term.

It simply means those who share your religion.

I think your problem is that you seem to see anyone and anything as derogatory that doesn't actually agree with you. On an internet discussion board you are going to encounter people of various viewpoints.

looksee

Yeah, I agree, there should be Catholic mods, and there should be Fianna Fail mods on Politics and teacher mods in Education and Brit mods pretty well everywhere, and cyclist mods in Motors and ... oh! there are? Ah well they were not appointed because they were Fianna Fail or teachers or Brits so they don't count, they might not have an angle that we like, far too random.

vodafoneproblem

PDN threatens a Catholic for back-seat modding one evening: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66584547&postcount=184 (pg 13)

Next morning, and on the very next page, Jimi insults every Catholic poster on the forum and nothing is said to him. Why does Jimi get away with murder all the time, and could this possibly explain why he feels free to have such an aggressive attitude? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66588036&postcount=200 (pg 14)

(PDN posted later down the same page http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055947637&page=14 Check out the Jimi/Jakkass smug-off for bonus points )

PDN

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

PDN threatens a Catholic for back-seat modding one evening: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66584547&postcount=184 (pg 13)

Let's come back to reality for a moment.

That particular poster had posted ten times questioning and criticising a particular moderating decision. If anything I was guilty of excessive lenience.

Then, in post 156, I warned him inthread not to keepbackseat modding. I instructed him to pursue any queries concerning modding via PM or Feedback. This post was in boldface type to make clear it was a formal moderating instruction.

Instead the poster continued to argue the decision. Therefore, in the post you linked to, I issued him with a second inthread warning, informing him that next timer it would be an infraction.

In fact, looking back, I am amazed at my lenience. Jimitime was certainly not given such a huge number of chances before he received either of the two yellow cards I have awarded him in his time on the forum.

Next morning, and on the very next page, Jimi insults every Catholic poster on the forum and nothing is said to him. Why does Jimi get away with murder all the time, and could this possibly explain why he feels free to have such an aggressive attitude? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=200 (pg 14)

Again, you didn't report the post did you?

mdebets

StealthRolex wrote: »

Where did I say anti-catholic?

In my opinion there is prejudice and impartiality but don't go doing a PDN suggesting I called anyone anti-catholic when I did not.

Here, here and here.

Especially the latest one is important, as you say:

StealthRolex wrote: »

If on the other hand you feel that openly questioning the Pope and the Magesterium is fair game and that women priests should be allowed then I would consider your position to be anti-catholic.

Which basically says that if someone is questioning the pope (basically every Christian who is not member of the RCC ) he is anti-catholic.

StealthRolex

Maybe its a case of perception then. btw how do we know when your are not appearing as a mod on the board?

PDN wrote: »

Do you see why you are less than convincing when you try to present yourself as an innocent victim?

Me innocent? Come on - I'm far from it and you know it. If any of the mods call me out I put my hands up. If I feel it is unfair I challenge as I did when you accused me incorrectly of labelling another party anti-catholic.

I think your problem is that you seem to see anyone and anything as derogatory that doesn't actually agree with you. On an internet discussion board you are going to encounter people of various viewpoints.

and you don't have the same problem?

If you are going to use eisegesis to explain away what you don't understand of Catholic doctrine you have to accept that all non-Catholic doctrine is constructed the same way.

StealthRolex

mdebets wrote: »

Here, here and here.

Especially the latest one is important, as you say:


Which basically says that if someone is questioning the pope (basically every Christian who is not member of the RCC ) he is anti-catholic.

No - you have not made your case. You have used misrepresentatation and eisegesis. There is a world of difference between calling a person anti-catholic and describing their position or their rhetoric as anti-catholic.

We did this on the atheist thread. Atheisism does not kill people, people kill people.

Rhetoric does not describe the person it describes what they say.

A position does not describe the person it describes where they appear to stand.

I am not anti-protestant. I am anti protestantism. Difference. I disagree with the doctrine. I would not however take that out on the person.
I have no problem however describing my position as being anti-protestantism or anti-anti-catholicism. But I am very anti-anti-catholics for the same reason.

I attack the ideas not the persons holding them.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe its a case of perception then. btw how do we know when your are not appearing as a mod on the board?

In the majority of cases its abundantly obvious to even the dimmest of posters.

For example, if I say "Please stop backseat modding or I'm going to infract you" then I'm obviously acting as a mod.

If I say, "The Greek word in the text you quoted is the third person singular passive of ekballo, meaning 'to throw'" then its equally obvious that I'm acting as a poster.

Where I think there could be any possible confusion I usually put moderating comments in bold-faced type, or precede it with a Heading Underlined that says something like Moderator's Warning.

We do tend to give posters credit for having some wit and cop on to know the difference.

Me innocent? Come on - I'm far from it and you know it. If any of the mods call me out I put my hands up. If I feel it is unfair I challenge as I did when you accused me incorrectly of labelling another party anti-catholic.

I don't actually remember making any such accusation against you. However, I may be wrong, so feel free to link to where I made that accusation.

and you don't have the same problem?

Not at all. There's loads of posters disagree with my beliefs all the time. I'm very happy being part of a board where we can disagree over mnany things without being nasty to each other or getting all offended all the time.

The majority of the posters have expressed their disagreement with my position on speaking in togues as a Pentecostal. I don't find their disagreement to be derogatory at all. Jimitime has disagreed strongly with me over a number of very fundamental issues, including hell, the trinity and my position on the Civil Partnership Bill - I agree to disagree, but certainly don't get offended or find his disagreement in any way derogatory. plowman, as a Catholic, disagrees with my views on statues - but that's cool.

If you are going to use eisegesis to explain away what you don't understand of Catholic doctrine you have to accept that all non-Catholic doctrine is constructed the same way.

I don't and I don't.

But if you are going to accuse others of eisegesis, then you have to learn not to act all precious if your accusation rebounds on yourself. If you can't take it then don't hand it out.

ISAW

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well then if there were that many active practising catholics in the country then there would be more posting in the christianity forum, but there isn't. Again the forum is not swamped with catholic threads at all so there is not the user base for it.

Has there even been a poll in the christianty forum on it's demographics?

i will again restate my former point.

One can not argue about demographics and Ireland and claim boards.ie represents a demographic and then also argue that anti-catholic bias should not be suppressed using rules.

If only one black person is on the bus they are entitled to sit where they want and not wher the majority think they should sit!

Having said that ireland has 3.7 million Catholics and probably not 10,000 pagans.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Firstly, you were asked to provide examples of where mods "have exercised prejudices or misconceptions when having their mod hats on". Instead you have ignored that request and have cited examples of where I was posting, not moderating.

i would prefer that the issue of "let Catholics have a forum to discuss things" not be turned into a "the current mods are biased"

Everyone is biased. The point being made in this thread is (I believe) that non catholic mods are not aware of their own bias. But the question is if this necessitates a Catholic mod or just people to point out the bias?

ISAW

looksee wrote: »

Yeah, I agree, there should be Catholic mods, and there should be Fianna Fail mods on Politics

Lol Getting Catholic mods in a 90 per cent Catholic country is one thing even if pposters and mods are anti catholic but I submit they would NEVER allow a Fianna Fail mod in politics You must be kidding! ROTFLMOL

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

But the question is if this necessitates a Catholic mod or just people to point out the bias?

But since no-one has actually demonstrated any such bias the question is somewhat moot.