Off limits discussion?

[juantoo3]

If the buck doesn't stop here, where does it?

If the buck stops, discussion stops.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

How is a person to learn their understanding is half truth? Are we prepared to accept the half truths may in fact belong to us? The discovery may never happen in one's lifetime, but without discussion there is no way to discover. And who are we to judge what is in fact truth?

What *exactly* is truth? There can be multiple threads in all the religions, philosophies and sciences exploring this one simple question, and all will reach different conclusions - yet all will agree there is only one truth...so which is it? And once the "thought police" narrow down to supporting that one truth and silencing all others, the only conversation remaining will be silence. That isn't freedom, that is suppression. That isn't exchange of ideas, that is indoctrination.

If someone wishes to believe a half-truth, and that half-truth aids them in their journey through life, that is between them and G-d. That isn't my call to make. For all I know I labor under my own half-truth, which I'm willing to share with anybody, but not willing to force on anybody. I can only answer to G-d for myself, and aid those within my sphere of influence when it is in my ability to do so and that aid is requested or required, and to know when it is time to back off and leave well enough alone, and accept that others have the G-d given right to view the world differently, even VERY differently, than myself.

 

[juantoo3]

Ummm ... death threats had no bearing?

Excuse me? To whom, exactly, did I threaten? I want to see proof.

 

[RJM]

Excuse me? To whom, exactly, did I threaten? I want to see proof.

Yes. I don't have it. Previous admin made the decision. That was the reason given

 

[RJM]

And who are we to judge what is in fact truth?

Or untruth?

 

[juantoo3]

Like I said, I was a problem child that didn't go with the flow. I made ZERO death threats to anybody, ever. What I did post, and was promptly deleted and to which I was OK at the time and understood at the time the matter was resolved, was the FACT, backed up with FBI reports, of liberals shooting up conservatives in response to all the conservative bashing on the politics board that had gone on for over 3 years. Imagine that, me being banned from what had become a liberal board with a liberal leader...because I disagreed and could prove my reasoning why.

It all makes sense now, I had the audacity to come out as a conservative. For that I was "killed" here, and "buried."

 

[RJM]

How can I comment on a scripture I do not know, and from there decide the truth for others? Telling you what to believe, is different to taking about what
I believe?

 

[RJM]

Like I said, I was a problem child that didn't go with the flow. I made ZERO death threats to anybody, ever. What I did post, and was promptly deleted and to which I was OK at the time and understood at the time the matter was resolved, was the FACT, backed up with FBI reports, of liberals shooting up conservatives in response to all the conservative bashing on the politics board that had gone on for over 3 years. Imagine that, me being banned from what had become a liberal board with a liberal leader...because I disagreed and could prove my reasoning why.

It all makes sense now, I had the audacity to come out as a conservative. For that I was "killed" here, and "buried."

That's with the outgoing admin. We worked to get you back on the list?

 

[juantoo3]

That's with the outgoing admin. We worked to get you back on the list?

My beef isn't with you, I am well aware you went above and beyond to re-establish my access.

I also find it far more than a little unnerving that I have been blocked from this site for the past ten minutes. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe my account was not throttled previously under the former administration in spite of the denials.

 

[Snoopy]

My beef isn't with you, I am well aware you went above and beyond to re-establish my access.

I also find it far more than a little unnerving that I have been blocked from this site for the past ten minutes. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe my account was not throttled previously under the former administration in spite of the denials.

I know nothing of this obviously but will just say that I think the site was down for a short while earlier. That's me out of this thread.

 

[RJM]

My beef isn't with you, I am well aware you went above and beyond to re-establish my access.

I also find it far more than a little unnerving that I have been blocked from this site for the past ten minutes. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe my account was not throttled previously under the former administration in spite of the denials.

It went down for a while. It happened to everyone Juan

 

[wil]

I know nothing of this obviously but will just say that I think the site was down for a short while earlier. That's me out of this thread.

Dont leave it, thoughts meander...lettuce get back to the OP how do we broach sensitive topics to induce discussion?

Ok we aint so far off!

 

[RJM]

If the buck stops, discussion stops.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

How is a person to learn their understanding is half truth? Are we prepared to accept the half truths may in fact belong to us? The discovery may never happen in one's lifetime, but without discussion there is no way to discover. And who are we to judge what is in fact truth?

What *exactly* is truth? There can be multiple threads in all the religions, philosophies and sciences exploring this one simple question, and all will reach different conclusions - yet all will agree there is only one truth...so which is it? And once the "thought police" narrow down to supporting that one truth and silencing all others, the only conversation remaining will be silence. That isn't freedom, that is suppression. That isn't exchange of ideas, that is indoctrination.

If someone wishes to believe a half-truth, and that half-truth aids them in their journey through life, that is between them and G-d. That isn't my call to make. For all I know I labor under my own half-truth, which I'm willing to share with anybody, but not willing to force on anybody. I can only answer to G-d for myself, and aid those within my sphere of influence when it is in my ability to do so and that aid is requested or required, and to know when it is time to back off and leave well enough alone, and accept that others have the G-d given right to view the world differently, even VERY differently, than myself.

All the same, if I write on the internet that Mike said that, and Mike did not say that -- it is not the truth, and it will sit there forever and be shared with others who will propagate it. It is incumbent on those who know Mike to defend him by correcting the untruth.

I am totally entitled to say: my religion says X, but I am not entitled to continue to say that your religion says Y -- when I do not really know what your religion or your scripture says, apart from bits I learned from Wikipedia -- and just keep on repeating it after it has continuously been explained to me, to point of exhaustion, that it is an incorrect statement -- from which point it becomes a deliberate purpose to spread disinformation?

Half-truth takes many forms, including selective quote picking out of context, ignoring contrary facts etc. Of course it is often not deliberate. But once it has been pointed out to me and yet I ignore the correction and continue repeating it, then it becomes deliberate.

 

[RJM]

But I take your advice very seriously. I am grateful for it. I need to be more in control of what I say around here, and try not to respond to deleberate goading and provocation. It's never too late to learn, and learning is what life's really all about, probably. Life puts us into unexpected situations.

Thanks again

 

[muhammad_isa]

Half-truth takes many forms, including selective quote picking out of context, ignoring contrary facts etc. Of course it is often not deliberate. But once it has been pointed out to me and yet I ignore the correction and continue repeating it, then it becomes deliberate.

There is a problem here.
We all have different perceptions.

Two very popular perceptions in the world is that Islam is the truth, and Nicene Christianity is the truth.

Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.
i.e. They both believe in the One God of Abraham

..but the problem arises from dogma.
The dogma derives from either believing what the Qur'an says .. or believing what was decided during
the centuries after the ascension of Jesus.

The Bible and Qur'an are both "sacred history" books.

Nobody is telling anybody what to believe, IMO. What is the point in doing that?
As far as I'm aware, I'm just telling my side of the story, and @Thomas is telling his side.

 

[RJM]

Nobody is telling anybody what to believe,

Shall we keep that front and centre?

 

[RJM]

And should that include telling anybody what not to believe, which could be more to the point?

 

[Snoopy]

Dont leave it, thoughts meander...lettuce get back to the OP how do we broach sensitive topics to induce discussion?

Ok we aint so far off!

OK, the OP.
A clear set of reasonable rules, for all to see, including penalties for breaking. Any reported post is discussed by at least three members of staff and any decision has to be a majority one. Reinvention of the wheel isn't necessary, there's popular well run fora out there with published rules and procedures to... you know... inspire one...

 

[wil]

We can do that...but my question lies with tje sensitive topics which for some are lines that shouldn't be crossed, triggers, but for others questions that puzzle them.

Do we have a mine field of pandoras boxes or a policy of open exploration and if you are offended stfu?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And should that include telling anybody what not to believe..

I don't think it is a case of one person telling anybody to believe or not to believe anything.
If I say that I find some well established historical "facts" in early Christianity suspicious, for example,
that does not mean that you have to believe what I say.

There again, if you insist that I am misrepresenting history and should be derided,
perhaps it is you who are telling us all what to believe.

 

[Snoopy]

We can do that...but my question lies with tje sensitive topics which for some are lines that shouldn't be crossed, triggers, but for others questions that puzzle them.

Do we have a mine field of pandoras boxes or a policy of open exploration and if you are offended stfu?

I don't see an issue as long as the rules are clear and enforced in an even-handed manner. Civil and legal, basically. No-one has a right not to be offended (at least on an internet forum).