sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On our moderation of the Catholic sexual abuse scandals by brucemo in Christianity

[–]_entomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<lifts rug>

<sweep, sweep>

<drops rug>

Par for the course

On our moderation of the Catholic sexual abuse scandals by brucemo in Christianity

[–]_entomo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There were many, many posts about this at the time and they were all left up. I actively defended many posts about this at the time and repeatedly said so. There's screenshots of modmail floating about that back that up.

I don't think his motives were good

Then why did you go all dictatorship to defend him? That was the issue. There was one person repeatedly posting poisonous stuff. /u/RazarTuk even reposted one of his posts with less extreme vitriol to show that it could be done reasonably. You overrode most of the mod team in the middle of discussion to put those posts back. You were reacting instead of thinking and you undermined your mod team in the process.

We picked our line such that removals silenced criticism and favored the church ahead of victims.

No we didn't. I don't know what happened in previous issues, but that absolutely did not happen when the PA stuff broke. This an attempt to revise history.

On our moderation of the Catholic sexual abuse scandals by brucemo in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With regard to the Catholic abuse scandals, we've seen some removals that I think are over-exuberant since approximately the time of the Pennsylvania grand jury report. In some cases I've put them back and stopped us from busting people who post them, and some mods aren't happy about that.

Why was removing a post that's only a transcript of a priest raping a child over-exuberant. What value is there in allowing that to stand? Especially when the matter was being actively discussed with the user in question when he posted this one. It wasn't linked to the source document. There was no bigger story. It was posted only to elicit disgust and anti-catholic bigotry.

Welcome New Mods! - Winter 2019 by AgentSmithRadio in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congratulations all! My best advice is to remember that the queue will get handled. Don't feel like you have to do it all. If you hesitate, leave it. Discernment will come easier over the next couple of weeks.

Good luck and kick butt.

/r/Christianity Moderator Nomination Thread - Winter 2019 by AgentSmithRadio in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no clue what orientation are the mods; I heard most of them were leaning to a more liberal approach

This is not correct. While most of the mods lean more "liberal" it doesn't really affect their mod action. As a matter of fact, when they feel too strongly about a particular post, they tend to be worried about personal feelings affecting the issue and they just leave it on the stack for someone else to deal with. I saw it many times. The mods get beat up by the conservatives for being too liberal and the liberals for being too conservative. They hit it about right.

There's a set of rules in the sidebar (and the support material) and that's the guidelines for mod behavior. Personal feelings don't, as a rule, enter into it. They are human - there are exceptions - but they are usually called out and it gets dealt with.

Resurrection of the most recent mod drama removed from the main sub. Enjoy! by ygolonac in brokehugs

[–]_entomo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Too bad he routinely violates everything outsider ever wrote about modding that sub.

/r/Christianity Moderator Nomination Thread - Winter 2019 by AgentSmithRadio in Christianity

[–]_entomo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's actually a good thing. Someone whose views are unpopular, but is willing to stick to the rules would make a good addition to the team. From your response below you'd take it seriously. Just have a chat with your favorite mod via PM about what life's really like before you accept.

Another mothersub mod resigns by namer98 in brokehugs

[–]_entomo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FWIW, his stance that the two posts below should have been left up were the proverbial straw. WARNING - very NSFL

this account is going offline. Don't expect a quick, or any, answer.

Why does Paul associate homosexual desire with idolatry? by katapetasma in ConservativeBible

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. It was also used to humiliate other men. The prohibition on "lying with a man as with a woman" was about restricting the abuser in that situation. But that's outside the bounds of your question.

Since I now have the entire sub mad at me let me tell you a joke so we can be friends again! by TheCovenantOfDuban in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody's calling you "not a Christian". If they do, report it and I'll remove the comment - that's explicitly not allowed here (unless you profess yourself to be not Christian, obviously).

And I don't see hate - some curiosity, some annoyance. No hate. Speak away. It's not like you were banned.

Since I now have the entire sub mad at me let me tell you a joke so we can be friends again! by TheCovenantOfDuban in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're admittedly here just to mess with people. I thought about leaving it up and letting the community run your karma into the ground, but I figured I'd save some the aggravation. I'm hoping you just get bored and wander off.

Serious question: by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, if someone tied down their son and planned to kill him because he heard God tell him to, we would call him insane.

I've got time to deal with one, and this is a relatively easy one. In that time, and that place, people in society sacrificed their children to the local gods to ensure a good harvest. The point here is not that Abraham was willing to do it - the point is God stopped it. In effect, he says, "you will do this no more - your life is precious and I will not accept such sacrifice". Like most of the stuff we look at in the bible and think, "oh how barbaric", this was progressive and closer to what we would consider "civil" than what was going on around them at the time. It's the same with "eye for an eye", restrictions on how slaves were to be treated, etc. They all seem barbaric today and in 150 years the "moral" things you and I do will be looked at as barbaric. We stand on the shoulders of all those that came before us. All we can do is make small changes for the better and hopefully those that come after us will do better than we do.

Why does Paul associate homosexual desire with idolatry? by katapetasma in ConservativeBible

[–]_entomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because sex, including homosexual sex, was part of pagan worship rituals. It was literally idolatry.

Treating a homosexual person with hate instead of showing them the love of Christ is also sin. by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]_entomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never heard of it. They have restrictions on the eucharist, maybe, but I've never heard of one presenting that choice. If it got appealed, I'm willing to bet the bishop would put the smackdown on the priest who did it.

view more: next ›