[davem]

This is straying off topic, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. For the record though....

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

But I wasn't 'attacking' any individual or their beliefs. I was responding to the points they made. There is a difference between attacking an individual, or being 'disrespectful' of their views & beliefs, & attacking statements. I don't see that I was anymore 'disrespectful' of posters on this thread than I was of say, Philip Pullman or Michael Moorcock in another recent thread. I can see, however, that it could have been taken that way. So, I accept, as I said, that I took a wrong approach.

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly. This is one reason why I never give out negative rep - because I think it is usually taken as an attack on the poster rather than on the post.

Finally, I can only say that if anyone is inclined to attack or abuse my beliefs they are free to do so - except that would be difficult for them, because I keep them to myself.....

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

I didn't give any names, therefore no-one knows who said what. In the first case I couldn't have asked permission anyway. As far as I'm concerned they were part of the debate which should have been posted on the board.

Private 'attacks' are no better, or respectful, than public ones.

This is a question of etiquette, I suppose, & it all comes down to what one feels is acceptable & what one thinks is a step too far. I remember reading Jung's works. He would give detailed accounts of cases, but never give the patient's names, so they could not be identified. Further, neither of the comments gave any personal information about the person who sent them, they merely expressed an opinion about my behaviour - so in effect they were about me, not about the poster. The communication, on the point of reciept, became 'mine' to do with as I would.

In conclusion, I can only say that if one is ashamed or embarrassed about something one says being made public, one should think very carefully before one says it in private.

But we should get back to the topic, I suppose. I'll be happy to continue this by PM, as it is a rather philosophical debate - & in this case I will promise not to reveal anything you say....