Good post!
....It seems, in general on this site, it would help if the religion moderator responded more like a knight....I was always under the impression that chivalry and conservatism went hand-in-hand. For a man to respect a woman completely, he must first love Our Lady, Christ's Mother. And that is why I believe the main religion moderator on this site is not a Roman Catholic, or at least not a happy devout one, which of course could lead to bias in his decisions....
Congratulations - you've discovered that I'm not a spineless pajama-boy feminist. Does that make me biased? Is that why there's mustard on my corned-beef-on-rye sandwich?
It's been my experience over the last fourteen years on FR that most FReepers take no notice of the Religion Forum unless they see A) their beliefs mentioned in the thread title, B) a FReeper handle they recognize among the pings, and especially C) if the recognized name in (b) does not belong to the belief system in (a). Bad perceptive abilities do not make for valid accusations of bias. For example, about seven years ago there was a huge flap in the Religion Forum over an excess of posts on the subject of sexual abuse in churches. One FReeper posted 50+ threads on the subject over three weeks, while another FReeper posted 8 threads on the same subject over the same period. All of the threads were factual. Many were about current events i.e. news stories within the previous month. Few, if any, discussed doctrinal differences. It was the smaller set of threads that got the most flak. Should the larger set have been viewed as being more offensive?
In a society that values freedom of speech and expression, there will be complaints about anti-Catholic slanders (so say the Catholics), just as there will be claims of anti-Protestant slanders (so say the Protestants), as there will be complaints about anti-Mormon slanders (so say the Mormons), etc etc etc. Less acknowledged will be pro-Catholic accolades, just as with pro-Protestant accolades, just as with pro-Mormon accolades, etc etc etc. All of them will happen, but the "pro" ones rarely get noticed.
In microcosm, someone's sacred cow gets gored every single day in the Religion Forum on Free Republic, and in my experience it's the cattle barons who whine the loudest about the mess and the veterinary bills. What shall we do? The Bible tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". I propose that FReepers adopt that verse as a mnemonic tool, to remind them that whenever they see the floors slick with the blood of a sacred cow, they should invoke Christ's shed blood and forgive the offender. If nothing else, by forgiving one another you have placed hot coals atop the sinner's head (Romans 12:20, cf Proverbs 25:22), making them visibly uncomfortable and therefore providing hours of amusement for the rest of us FReepers who were never offended in the first place.
Second, it's my personal belief that we Christians are called to turn the other cheek (Lamentations 3:30, cf Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) because we're lousy judges of what's really an attack, what's an accidental blow, and what's a well-deserved admonition from a friend. By turning the other cheek, in effect we give the "attacker" the benefit of the doubt, rather than respond to an accidental slap with an intentional slug in the mouth, provoking a fight that wasn't there in the first place.
As FReepers, by reducing the number of cheek-slapping abuse reports that we plague the moderators with, IMO we make them happier moderators with clearer thinking, which can only lead to higher quality, more-deserved ZOTs, and who doesn't enjoy watching a well-deserved ZOT?
Then go back to read my reply, that in reality,
i only asked the questions once, while the other posts were in response to "i don't answer to you," to which i explained how a forum works, and "Your purpose is to be decisive by asking questions, purposefully misinterpreting them, and cherry picking quotes (Biblical and otherwise) in an effort to justify your own beliefs" [mind reading, which i did not flag], to which i explained how truth is divisive, and challenged the poster to substantiate her charges, and "You did exactly as I wrote you would." To which last spitball i gave my last rebuke. Then another poster [YOU] chimed in, and one perhaps hit the abuse button.
If was actually the poster who kept it going by her [mind reading and fallacious assertions, then you decided to get involved, and even now cannot let the matter rest but resurrect it days later.
But this is a forum, in which we are to expect truth claims and statements to be challenged.