My comment is awaiting moderation?

Why should that surprise me. It’s a shame when my opinion is shut down. 

Not criticised, simply blocked. This isn’t healthy for conversation, is it? 

 I welcome all comments, with the exception of spam of course. If someone brings up a valid point that contradicts my argument,  fair play. 

That’s how we learn. 


33 thoughts on “My comment is awaiting moderation?

    • here’s another possibility; maybe they believe the comment is an attempt to antagonize, rather than a genuine attempt at civil dialog. So, rather than engage in a negative, a pointless, argument, where there is no actual intent to seek understanding, they choose to ignore.

      • Sadly, you cannot have civil dialog with a number of blogs on this site. That is the nature of many theists, and I honestly do not find it harsh to say so. Not all but definitely some.
        I brought up a number of points that I feel were valid, solid arguments. As long as I am not beheading, torturing, discriminating, I’m be in pretty civil, right?

      • Hi there. You might have a point, but it would require quite a blanket accusation based on little to no actual information on the actual conversations. I’d be careful with that accusation

      • R.E. From where I sit, it appears my words are not being interpreted clearly. I’d like to try to clarify: 1) I did not say you were a, or “the” “disrespectful one”. I referenced the use of disrespectful language. I can assure you, if I use that particular word, I know I’m being disrespectful. So when someone uses that in addressing me, I find it both startling and offensive. Perhaps not everyone finds it disrespectful, but I’d venture a guess more than not would not speak it around a beloved grandmother. 2) I fail, completely, to see how an illustrated suggestion of what would lead a person to eternal damnation is disrespectful. Now if I said to someone “go to Hell” I can see where that could be deemed disrespectful (I’d agree–especially in light of what I believe Hell to be) but to discuss the possibility of such a place and what leads one to choose that as their destination, is not disrespectful. 3) I do not know of this God who “punishes” people in or to Hell. I spoke of no such God. Did you read all of my blog?

      • You don’t see how threatening people with torture and eternal death is disrespectful? You dont know that the God of the bible punishes in hell?
        You are either naive or just plain dishonest. Most likely the latter but it stretches credulity and insults our intelligence and previous Christian experience and training for you to imply you know nothing of this God who punishes in hell. Baby, that’s why God made hell in the nt

      • I understand how a profanity aimed directly at you could be seen as disrespectful. And regarding Hell, an illustrated suggestion of what would lead a person to eternal damnation is disrespectful to the human race. This is of course if you do not object to such a destination. And to say people choose that as their destination is questionable. I’m am unsure of your exact beliefs, who do you feel is destined to hell?

      • R.E., Imagine you and I are hiking together on a trail in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. It’s a hot summer day, we’ve been hiking some time now, and we see a semi shaded spot where we can stop to rest by sitting atop some large semi-smooth rocks. Because I’m from the USA, and have lived and hiked often in the Rocky Mountains, I’m aware of potential dangers to look for. I see you about to plot down on a nice rock and I’m faced with a decision. Without thinking, I know what my choice would be, but for illustration purposes, I’ll define a potential dilemma: I can risk offending your ego by yelling out to you to not sit there, or I can keep my mouth shut and say nothing because I don’t want to be disrespectful. What I do know and you may or may not be aware is that poisonous rattle snakes often hide in the cool shade of large rocks and there are copious amounts of these snakes in those mountain regions. Thus the safety of one’s life is dependent upon insuring one is not sitting down next to a rattle snake. So, the question begs: if I believe we are comprised of both body and an eternal soul, and I am aware of the means whereby one can experience a joyful eternal life of peace and love, but I am also aware of what choices could lead that same person to an eternity far away from the light and love, and I know that the effects of being cut off from that light and love will bring eternal sorrow, am I being disrespectful by sending out a warning call? If I know there are poisonous snakes and they WILL bite you with a deathly poison should you sit next to one, am I in error to cry out a warning, or am I doing the most loving thing I can by risking your offense by giving you a heads up? Look at it this way… IF I am wrong, you’ve nothing to lose–when you die you vape off into nothing. BUT…If my belief is truth…what does that mean for you if you purposefully reject The Creator of all light and love…

      • The problem with this illustration is this. You are not just warning me of the poisonous snakes, you are also getting on your knees and worshipping them.
        I would be delighted with a warning, and I am not one to take pride and ignore someone that knows better than me. What I am against is your description of a lord of ‘love’ that if I disagree with will punish me for eternity.
        Are you a good person for loving the person that will punish me? Or in the example from the Rockies, worshipping the poisonous snakes of ‘love’? I would respect you for warning me of snakes or a punishing God, but not for respecting them.
        To understand atheists better, it is not the warning you are giving us that is causing the most offence. If you fear a God and warn us about him I would respect you more. But if you are willing to respect and worship this God, you aren’t as moral as you feel you are.

  • Who owns the Internets, anyway?
    Only comments that should be blocked:
    1. Spam
    2. Too long.
    Give a blogger or blog institution the power to “moderate,” and they become a fascist ruler.

    • My blog is my private space. If someone becomes abusive, or insists on derailing the conversation, or is otherwise acting like a troll, I reserve the right to ban them. So far I have banned exactly one commenter.

      There are also public forums, and those should be more lightly moderated. But individual bloggers should be in control of their blogs to the extent they want. Don’t like their commenting policy? Don’t read their blog. Or read it, and then respond to it as a post on your own blog. They can’t do anything about that.

      • I would agree that it makes for a boring blog. But if somebody prefers their personal blog to be a boring echo chamber, I think they need to be able to do that. The cost of disallowing that level of control is that our personal blogs could be taken over by crazy preachers intent on using our spaces as their own personal pulpits, and we wouldn’t be able to put a stop to it.

  • There’s a lot of bloggers that leave moderation on all the time, and individually approve each commenter. If a blogger has been the target of a lot of abuse, I can understand that as a reasonable precaution. I’ve put my blog on open commenting for now, but if I started getting a lot of abusive trolls I’d turn moderation back on.

    But a blogger who uses comment moderation to filter out all competing ideas? That’s a blog I’ll be skipping. There’s already way too many places where people are just supposed to agree mindlessly with what is being said. They’re called churches, and I won’t spend time in those either.

      • I moderate my comments because I discovered I was missing ALL SORTS of comments and I wanted a chance to respond to all of them. It’s quickly becoming overwhelming though. I would never delete someone’s comment just because I disagreed with it. Unless it was outright offensive. I won’t tolerate hate speech even if it’s just in the spirit of “discussion.”

        Seems like this particular blogger just didn’t want to give you an opportunity to share your opinions though. I’d unfollow them and stop giving them the views or engagement.

      • I would be less offended if you didn’t respond to my comment instead of blocking it permanently 🙂 and yeah, I’m not going to bother commenting on such blogs from now on

      • I’m open to hearing thoughts from all opinions. However, I prefer the render of said opinion uses respectful language. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to spell out what that is, because regardless of theist position or belief, we humans seem to be in possession of knowledge and understanding as to what is considered respectful language. As for the comments that were “ignored” above, I don’t see evidence of disrespectful language, but I also fail to see a genuine attempt to engage in a respectful dialog. I suspect this is what those bloggers saw, which likely factors in their choosing to ignore. Perhaps their goal is to refrain from engagement in a verbal battle that will prove fruitless. What was your intent when you posted the comments?

      • I love how you can post about the chance of eternal torture but because I use a profanity, I am the disrespectful one. This is a prime example of how religion distorts our sense of morality and one of the aims of my blog is to help bring this to light. Would you not agree?
        My intention is to help theists see life from a much more logical, optimistic view. To promote the idea of a hateful God that punishes us in Hell whilst picking up on my use of a profanity, your priorities are heavily, heavily distorted!

  • @KIA, I am neither naive nor plain dishonest. I am simply more educated on the topic than you, apparently. I spend the better portion of most days listening and learning from those who spend their lives studying scripture and seeking truth from the bearer of all truth. So, no, I do not see it at all disrespectful to share with others what I am coming to understand. It is your choice to choose the path you will follow for your life, but I know I am not being disrespectful if I see a potential danger and call it out. IF you don’t like it, you can choose to not listen. As for Hell, and your understanding of it, just because you have, as you claim, a previous experience in “Christianity” which I take to mean you attended church or otherwise learned from someone who professed to be Christian, does not mean you, or they, had a clear understanding of God, the Bible, or the purpose of Hell. I don’t care to go into a dissertation on it here, but this much I will say, Hell was NOT created to send the souls of human beings there for punishment. Hell is for Satan, a once high ranking Angel and the Angels who chose to follow him in their direct rebellion against God, whom they know well as they once dwelt in HIS presence. Ever wonder why, in the New Testament, Demons always recognize and address the “Son of God”? It’s because they KNOW God.

    • Sorry gd, my experience is 34yrs as a Christian and 25 of that as a minister in various roles including teaching thru that bible, missions work here in the States and two foreign countries. Fuck off with your insults

  • RE, in regard to my analogy, on this point I want to be VERY clear, I absolutely do NOT worship the “snakes”!. I can’t emphasize that enough! The snakes represent Satan, the enemy of God and the enemy of our souls. It is Satan who desire to take as many of Gods creation to hell with him as he can. It is NOT God who desires any of His creation to go to Hell. That would be akin to you bringing children into this world and then hating them and wishing them to die. I don’t know if you have children, but I do, and for them to suffer is for me to suffer. I love them so much the last thing I ever want if for them to suffer. I believe our creator, the God of our souls loves us far more than we have capacity to love one another. (we are only human). I do not believe, at all, that the creator of our souls, who created us, and loves us, desire us to suffer. But, He created us with the ability to think and reason and thus make choices. He did NOT create us to be robots. He created us by breathing life into the clay mold of the man he formed. That breath of life is a portion of Him. Thus we are created with a capacity to love. He gives us the choice to love Him or to not. We are thus granted the choice to be with him or NOT. He will NOT force us to be with Him. However, if we choose to reject our creator, and thus choose to not be with Him, assuming our souls (the breath he blew into his creation) lives on after our body (the clay of the earth) dies, then that soul will go somewhere. That somewhere is FAR AWAY from God, IF we choose to reject Him. Enter Hell, the dwelling place of Satan, the first created being (in this case Angel) of God who rejected him. Hell is, as I stated earlier, merely the dwelling place of Satan. It is FAR away from God. It is dark there because it is the ABSENCE of God. God is LIGHT. To be FAR away from God is the absence of light. Those who are in Hell suffer because their existence is void of light and love. Right now in your life, you experience love from others, you experience light from the sun. You and I suffer because this world we live in is not perfect and there is sin in this world, which causes us to suffer. But even still, we do experience some light and love, however fallible it might be. But if we are completely removed from any light or love…. I think you get the picture. So, contrar to the Hell Fire and Damnation teachings of some Bible thumping preachers of the world, God does NOT delight in nor does He WANT for us to suffer. But he will not force our choices. WE choose. And then we end up with the natural consequences of our choices. i.e. we choose to be with God or we reject His saving grace and thus choose to not be with him. (Please excuse where I used caps as I am not “yelling’, only attempting to show emphasis on those particular words so the meaning is not overlooked.)

    • Thank you for clearing up for stance and exact opinion.
      I’m still confused with this system God and Satan have. How is it arranged? You know when a separated couple work together to arrange days to see the kids, is it the same with God and Satan? To me, they seem to work together like a divorced couple…

      • You pose an interesting question in an interesting way. I’m not aware of God and Satan having a system, per se. I wonder if you are familiar with Lee Strobel. I happened upon a documentary, via Netflix, about his experience at a time when I stood at a crossroads questioning the existence of God. Lee is a former legal editor of The Chicago Tribune. He was an Atheist. His wife became a believer in Christ. My understanding is he saw that as a deal breaker. At some point he set out to prove or disprove her belief in God. His journey, using his investigative skills took him to a place he didn’t expect to go. I watched the documentary and a few years later read his book The Case for Christ. I was seeking for truth. I believe I’m finding it. I see much of life as somewhat of a gamble, hence my title for the blog that you saw. I believe in this mortal life we simply will not find all the answers we seek. But I also don’t believe we’re flying blind. I noted you’ve studied from some stanch Atheists. I hope your research includes balancing that with equal intense study of the opposition. That said, nothing can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. It’s been attempted, but never accomplished.

      • I am not aware of Lee Strobel, and to be honest I do not study theists work as intensely. I struggle to understand why I should spend my life looking for a God that created us? It’s like looking for a father that abandoned us. Maybe someone searches as they can’t stand the pain of being fatherless, but does this make God moral or worthy of such attention? Maybe God isn’t intelligent or as strong a perceived and cannot contact us. In this case, why should I bother to worship? If this God exists, I do not blame people for searching. But worshipping, this is unnecessary and undeserving.
        Regarding your closing comment, stating that nothing can prove or disprove God is a terrible argument from a theist perspective. You could spend a million years trying to prove Zeus doesn’t exist, and you will get nowhere. There could be zero evidence yet there will always be an Ancient Greek enthusiast that says ‘well, maybe Zeus is testing us?’ Or ‘maybe Zeus is out of our comprehension?’.
        It’s much easier and more logical to simply assume he doesn’t exist, and much more respectable to refrain from giving God the attention if he chooses to remain hidden.

      • This is slightly off topic, but actually right on topic with the blog I wrote that caught your attention. You may find this interesting to hear that I may have to stand corrected and re-write my blog. Seriously. I know! I’ve a long quote I wanted to share, too long to post it here, but here’s a short quote:
        ” How do we know about this place called hell? Where did hell come from? It is not in the Bible. Neither is the name “hell” in the Bible. Where did it come from? Not by faith that comes by hearing God’s word. It is from the doctrines and precepts of men [Matthew 15:9].”
        The link for the lengthy but very informative article is here:
        I’ve just spent about an hour trying to read and digest it. So incredible, to me anyhow.

      • Oh, and I didn’t mean to dismiss your last comment–rather my mind is presently really focused on this new information. I’ll have to get back with you on that when my minds not all abuzz…(metaphorically speaking, of course)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s