How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (1 Viewer)

[The Longtime Lurker]

We can't possibly look at things the same way an all knowing, understanding God would.

If this is true, why doesn't God speak in terms we understand instead of in a way far above our understanding forcing us to make assumptions and interpretations we can't possibly understand? An all powerful God should be able to speak to us directly in a way we can understand in no uncertain terms. And if we're broken, why did God create us in his image and then break us?

I'm not being flippant, but he does. The message from God is simple. It would probably be helpful to address specific confusions perhaps? Not sure. I do believe the most important parts of the faith are black and white and blatantly obvious, but I have also taken to seeking him and looking to have relationship with him. I stopped treating the Bible as an answer book and take it for what it is meant to be which is one of three pillars. Prayer, Biblical study and Communion with others ALL work together (none by themselves) to foster healthy relationship with God because that's the way he chose to do things and that's how we are designed.

God didn't "break" us. He gives us rules to live by. We choose to break them. I think a more proper question you are wanting to know the answer to is "why did God choose to create us with free will instead of just creating us as minions to worship him?" This is the concept of "free will" I listed above.

Yes, i agree the important parts are black and white, it's the source that i find the gray.

I look at religions as a philosophy, a guideline to use to live a fulfilling life. I can take elements of Buddhism (4 noble truths, 8 fold path), stoicism (acceptance of the inevitable and discomfort), Christianity (love and service) just to name a few. I can do this and appreciate the roadmap to life they provide and i don't need an intelligent creator to do that. I think the flexibility to pull from a variety of sources is a positive. Agnosticism allows me that freedom vs a singular dogma.

Free will is an interesting concept to explore. Does an abused child have free will? We know the cycle of abuse tends to be generational and the scars of our childhood last into adulthood as fears and trauma dig deep into the psyche and shape the individuals development.

What do you mean when you say the bold? I ask because there are three different avenues we are to use to inquire/pursue God. And they are to be used in conjunction with each other. Ignoring one will make the journey difficult for sure.

I mean God

Definitely a confusing deity for sure. It's a constant quest to learn. Never stops.

Agree. I think I've given up on the notion of a supreme deity, but i don't feel the pull to accept one. What i haven't given up on is the philosophy and continuing to learn more. There's value in Christianity to the "non believer", same as any other great idea. The concept alone can be fulfilling in and of itself imo. Another piece to the complicated human condition puzzle.

I'm glad there could be conversation. It's a serious topic and it can be a fun topic. I have a better appreciation i didn't have after reading the responses and i feel like I've learned some things i wasn't clear on. You and @dgreen are good representatives of your religion.

 

[RCon]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

 

[Zow]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

 

[Zow]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

Thanks. I don't see it but I could well have missed it. I saw some comments on liberal and conservative that were deleted. But nothing on white nationalism that I saw. But for sure, if you see something well over the line in the future, please report.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

I don't understand.

The post you reported on March 17 was https://forums.footballguys.com/thr...ssion-ask-questions-here.802558/post-25277317

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

That's the "sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted" you're accusing the poster of making?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I like your interpretation better than a literal take, it's a responsibility and requires critical thinking skills to get it right though

Reading the bible with a critical mind literally gets you all the way to Genesis 2 before there are irreconcilable contradictions (the order of creation) where the two authors' accounts differ. But those contradictions are meaningless if you read the stories that the two authors are telling from two different perspectives with two different goals ultimately which provide a fuller picture of God's relationship with creation (Genesis 1) and humanity (Genesis 2). I get that almost everyone takes these stories literally when they first encounter them (including me) and somehow miss these details every time after. But I think it is pretty indicative of the entire bible when within a few pages a literal reading fails, if you pay attention to the details. And it is not likely that this went unnoticed by everyone until just now. Just most everyone.

 

[Mister CIA]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

 

[dkp993]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

 

[nightmare]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

 

[dgreen]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

 

[dkp993]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

 

[RCon]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

But I would let them go to church because that is the religion of my forefathers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

He’s not “leading” the thread. He started it. I’ll disagree as I think there has been some good discussion here.

 

[dgreen]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

I’m not sure what you mean. The uses of “liberal” that I’m referring to are also in the parlance of today.

 

[Paddington]

We can't possibly look at things the same way an all knowing, understanding God would.

If this is true, why doesn't God speak in terms we understand instead of in a way far above our understanding forcing us to make assumptions and interpretations we can't possibly understand? An all powerful God should be able to speak to us directly in a way we can understand in no uncertain terms. And if we're broken, why did God create us in his image and then break us?

He does IF you have the Holy Spirit to open your understanding. The Bible is Spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15, 14-16 KJV
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[14] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. [16] For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Paddington]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

He’s not “leading” the thread. He started it. I’ll disagree as I think there has been some good discussion here

Joe, in response to one of those you just quoted, For the record, I never said that Liberals don't go to heaven as someone said about me. I did say that Jesus Christ is the only Way to heaven because that's what He said. Other religions believe that they are right and that's ok, so why is it wrong for Christians to believe that they ate right?

 

[Paddington]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

I’m not sure what you mean. The uses of “liberal” that I’m referring to are also in the parlance of today.

There are Liberal and Conservative Bible Scholars, has nothing to do with Politics. Liberal Scholars tend to allegorize the Scripture and in my opinion use that as a way to change the meaning of it. Conservative Scholars tend to take it more Literally, unless the text specifies that it is an allegory. I believe this to be the correct way of interpreting Scripture. Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

I am confident that liberal/conservative in that thread was not about politics. It is no more of a sweeping judgment that those Christians that
would either reject, reinterpret, and/or de-emphasize the only thing that matters - a belief is Jesus' death and resurrection for the atonement of my sin - is no different from everyone else that is destined for hell. I don't see how expressing that belief should be any more problematic than "we all fall short and are deserving of eternal punishment." I think that most people with any sense of morality and an absence of a belief otherwise would find saying this anything but "being excellent to one another". But for many, probably most Christians sharing this message is the most loving thing they can do. Kind of a dilemma for a board owner/moderator to handle a message offered in love that concurrently insults many.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

God will have a lot of answering to do.

 

[Zow]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

@Joe Bryant

This links to the comments that I inferred to be championing white nationalism and arguably bigoted. I errantly (though in good faith) that I had reported them. I did report an earlier post of his as you point out. I did believe that Paddington was the one that arguably went "off the rails" in that thread and led to its shut down which is why I was initially confused by your statement suggesting Paddington hadn't done anything.

 

[dkp993]

I am confident that liberal/conservative in that thread was not about politics.

I am confident that it was. Was extremely clear at the time. Again, he had been warned multiple times previously to not say the things he was saying. But it’s mute at this point as it’s all gone.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

@Paddington
The Ministry of Pain would like to be on record since you ignored my posts in the other thread

Who wrote the Bible, specifically the New Testament? i've asked this question a few times and it is crickets in here
It's hard to take anyone seriously that will not take the time to learn and understand the history of the weapon they are waving around in the air, yes you use the bible as a weapon
There was one group of people that could actually read and write back then, I think most folks know who I mean

-You can say inspired Word of God or the 4 disciples but none of that holds water in any Christian History course I've ever experienced at a major University
The Hebrews wrote the NT not Christians

-You obviously are a Martin Luther Christian but prior to the 1500s, who controlled the New Testament and how it was spread to others?
The Catholic Church

-The Black Plague might have wiped out half the population but it wiped out 97% of Catholic Priests, you ever hear of Last Rites? Something all folks were entitled to back then
Prior to the Plague, it was highly difficult to become a Catholic Priest but after the plague wiped most of them out, they would take anyone with a set of teeth
The Church starts to slowly decline

-Bibles were only written in Latin during those times and so the smartest guy in every town was the priest, he had to be in order to translate to those who couldn't read or understand it
Imagine trying to build your faith around something that you can't even read and have to rely on someone to give you instruction and guidance on what it says

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?
I understand why you don't post with me, nobody wants to argue with someone who whips out historical facts that go against everything you've been taught in Sunday School

I'm not an atheist, far from it
I also am not capable of putting forth blind faith and that is a requirement for Christians, tough one for me unfortunately

 

[fatness]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

I wouldn't even go that far. When this topic is posted again, just delete it without banning OP. That way he's free to post something else instead of the same cut/paste message.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

@Joe Bryant

This links to the comments that I inferred to be championing white nationalism and arguably bigoted. I errantly (though in good faith) that I had reported them. I did report an earlier post of his as you point out. I did believe that Paddington was the one that arguably went "off the rails" in that thread and led to its shut down which is why I was initially confused by your statement suggesting Paddington hadn't done anything.

That link above https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475 is to my post where I said I'd like to drop the Christian Nationalism discussion and that separating Church and State are a very good thing.

This discussion can be useful. But please let's drop the Christian Nationalist tangent which will inevitably be political. Thank you.

Separation of Church and State is a very good thing. Let's leave it at that.

Obviously, Christian Nationalism and White Nationalism are not the same thing. Quick answer from ChatGPT. As always, there can be errors but this is how I understand it.

Christian Nationalism​

Core Idea: The belief that the U.S. should be defined by Christian values, often blending American identity with a particular version of Christianity.

Key Points:

• Sees America as founded by and for Christians.
• Often argues for laws and policies based on conservative Christian principles.
• Can include people of all races, though it's often associated with white evangelical circles.
• Focus is religious identity—“America is a Christian nation”—and political power tied to that belief.

Examples of Christian nationalist ideas:

• Wanting the Ten Commandments in public buildings.
• Opposing church/state separation.
• Believing God has a special plan for America.

---

White Nationalism​

Core Idea: A racial ideology that centers on the belief that white people should maintain dominance in political, cultural, and demographic life.


Key Points:

• Rooted in race, not religion.
• Seeks to preserve "white identity" and often explicitly supports racial segregation or supremacy.
• Can include people who are not religious at all—or even anti-Christian.
• Focus is racial identity—“America is a white nation”—and maintaining power for white people.

Examples of white nationalist ideas:

• Opposing immigration to preserve a white majority.
• Believing in white genetic or cultural superiority.
• Promoting myths of white persecution or “replacement.”

Obviously, they are very different. But they can overlap.

🌫 Where They Overlap​

• In the U.S., some white nationalists wrap their ideology in Christian language to appeal to a broader base.
• Some Christian nationalists adopt ideas that reflect white cultural dominance, even if they don’t talk explicitly about race.
• Both can promote exclusionary or authoritarian politics, but for different root reasons.

---

Important Distinction​

Not everyone who is a devout Christian or proud American is a Christian nationalist. And not every person who values their heritage is a white nationalist. These terms describe specific ideologies, not general beliefs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In my opinion, accusing someone of being a Christian Nationalist and wanting the 10 Commandments in school is radically different from accusing someone of being a White Nationalist and believing in white superiority.

If we make accusations that serious in the future, back them up with the exact quote to support the accusation.

With all that said, please drop the whole Nationalist tangent. There's no way to keep it from politics.

The last page of this thread is also why we killed the PSF.

Please keep it on the original topic and off the accusations and politics.