• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Regarding Discussions on Religious Figures

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it offensive to call God the ultimate evil, but I am not going to get mad at the wiki for having him as a character since it is from another verse.
 
Yes.

It is very different from the Bible. SMT is similar in the fact that it regards themes of the creator of mankind, fallen angels, etc. Not in the sense that anything that God (YHVH, in SMT) could do is wrong or anything less than perfect. Ergo they cannot be the same character- one is a spoof.
 
SMT also includes every religion in that discussion, and every denomination of each one. Not to mention every viewpoint in existence. Not to mention the creators even said that isn't the case through the way SMT cosmology should work. It is by no means a good example.
 
Preacher is considerably worse in that regard than SMT i.m.h.o.
 
I only agree to this because people here are visibly offended by it, but i personally disagree with such a rule. We all live in modern times and are (mostly) mature enough to distinguish between harmless discussions between peoples online and actual heresy. Calling stuff like that blaspehemy is really reaching far. Its a clash of different opinions/views about god, not a atheist burning a bible in front of your face and screaming "god is not almighty!!!11!"

Again, i agree with this rule only because people feel offended by such discussions existing and losing them has no impact on the wiki in any shape or form. But the implications, and you now need to forgive me for that i will probably sound offensive, is silly to say at least. Its just another form of censoring.
 
Rocker1189 said:
I find it offensive to call God the ultimate evil, but I am not going to get mad at the wiki for having him as a character since it is from another verse.
Click to expand...
Of course. Offense shouldn't govern what is and isn't allowed on the Wiki.

But if y'all want to ban all such discussion, go ahead. You're just following FANDOM's path of PC outrage culture-quelling censorship.
 
@FW

Well, I'll happily be the silliest person alive and I approve of this censorship if that's the case.
 
If we really need to discuss controversial topics like these, we should do it somplace else. This site is not the place for it
 
Also, SMT is heavily based on Gnosticism as with most Japanese works featuring monotheistic deities. SMT follows the Gnostic belief that the God of the Old Testament/YHVH is actually the Demiurge. It's not something Atlus decided to do just to be edgy.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Of course. Offense shouldn't govern what is and isn't allowed on the Wiki.

But if y'all want to ban all such discussion, go ahead. You're just following FANDOM's path of PC outrage culture-quelling censorship.
Click to expand...
My problem is not the offense in it self. Like I said I was not offended with that discussion above in anyway.

My problem is when it would likely get abused(people putting religious Gods against each other despite no profiles for example).

And the admins would be the people having to deal with the situation.
 
Agree with Witchy, really.

I'm Christian and I don't think that said thread was offensive in the slightest. My religion and my hobby are two different parts of my life, and if someone wants to measure the feats from the Bible, cool, they can have their fun.

What's so bad about it? They are just having fun.

I agree with not having those threads because they are controversial, but that's the only reason
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Of course. Offense shouldn't govern what is and isn't allowed on the Wiki.

But if y'all want to ban all such discussion, go ahead. You're just following FANDOM's path of PC outrage culture-quelling censorship.
Click to expand...
I'm not even supporting this because of how grossly this offends people, which makes me support this more, sure, but not really my main reason.

You can't tier religious figures that are part of majorly practiced religions mainly because that's already been tried for millennia. It's called theology. Having theological debates on this wiki is pointless and will consistently result in users pissing each other off, which is just a mess to manage.

Hell, we ban controversial matches for less.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
I feel like we need to talk about this. To simply put, discussions regarding tiering prominent/active religious figures should flat out not be allowed. I am not talking about variations who appear in various works of fictio, but instead the actual texts the religious people actually study and follow.
Click to expand...
One of the first things I said in the OP.
 
I mostly agree with First Witch, the only problem I have is the higher degree of trolling it'd invite, even if it's just in the threads and not the wiki proper.
 
Yobobojojo said:
Look, if you don't think this is necessary, look how badly even normal versus threads can go. It's irrational yes, but it's also human.
Click to expand...
This is my point. Imagine Naruto vs Bleach threads x10.
 
this isn't an SMT discussion thread and it was only an example

Witchy isn't wrong, though, and I respect a good argument. I'm not sure I can abide by someone saying we're all mature considering the proof to that statement is incredibly slim, but censorship is an issue. We ain't Fandom.
 
Well, as Sera mentioned, our main concern here is that this wiki is supposed to be a neutral hobbyist meeting spot for people all around the world, of wildly different cultures and perceptions. It isn't a good place to light a fuse to the potential bottle of nitroglycerine that is controversial religious discourse.
 
If more people like Witchy existed, then we could have done something proper about religious discussions.

But since there isn't, the best we can do to avoid getting attacked by terrorists is to ban such controversial threads.
 
Well, I'm an atheist so I don't know how much say I have in this. But I agree having the religious figures on here is a bad idea. That is because Christians and others with religious scripture usually see the stories as parables or metaphorical, but the feats or text in those books can only be used if taken literally. Or else they are just a super vague profile.

And then there are gonna be those what would love to say their deity or deities are stronger than a other religion. I don't think finding out how strong they are should be a big deal but the fact people can have thin-skin about or how others would actively and maliciously make matches to spite them should be avoided.
 
I agree, actual modern Religious should not even be allowed at all; and we clearly have an editing rule about this. Obviously characters loosely based on them are fair game, but we should avoid controversy with the supposedly "Real Gods". Even a simple question about their tier is rather offensive, as just because their best feat is only Low 2-C doesn't mean they can't be higher than that; especially if said character can still see and/or have knowledge of other timelines. It would be too offensive for any of them to be less than Tier 0, or possibly even Tier 0 is arguably too low. But we aren't going back to Polar Kun's Tier -1 for sure.

So bottomline, it's best not to even have discussions regarding Judeo-Christian or other religious deities's tiers or powers and abilities.
 
Whether you agree with my reasoning in the OP, but agree with the suggestion for another reason is fine. I made this not expecting EVERYONE to agree with my OP. Hence, why this is a discussion. For whatever reasons you accept the ban is up to you.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Y'all have way too much faith in religious discussions not getting heated.
Look at the last several thousand years, including the present day, then come back and tell me it won't be a shitshow here.
Click to expand...
Too damn true.

Look at the VS threads we have. Those alone create enough controversy to get the best of mods and admins banned.
 
Restrict said threads because people are apparently incapable of behaving in them without creating a mess due to their highly volatile, controversial nature, and it being a subject people understandably have very strong opinions on.

Do not restrict said threads because "They might offend some people!", that's being completely hypocritical.

This is my take.
 
Yobobojojo said:
We literally have 44 threads of Rule Violation Threads that spawned from just fictional Verses with no real world religious references being toxic. If we want to bring religion into that, we must be absolutely insane.
Click to expand...
100%

That thread was okay because it never got much traction, this wiki gets a lot of visitors despite only a small percetage commenting, imagine what would happen if people that feel very defensive about their religion comes across stuff like this.

And finally imagine FANDOM stepping in, things would go from pretty bad to Hell(haha yeah I know) very soon.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
But if y'all want to ban all such discussion, go ahead. You're just following FANDOM's path of PC outrage culture-quelling censorship.
Click to expand...
As you probably know, I personally despise the aforementioned type of massive restrictions in the freedom of speech for fact-based rational discourse about important topics that need to be handled for civilisation to function properly, but there is a time and place for it, and a harmless entertainment wiki that collects people from the entire world that might quickly start to constantly scream at each other if they went into ideology, probably isn't it.
 
Agree with Matt and Ant.

Trust me, I'm not for censorship. People can discuss these things but they shouldn't make threads about it. Whatever you say in chat and or on a message wall between your buddies is your business
 
Yeah, offense isn't the issue. The problem occurs when it's a topic people have proved they are willing to kill and die for in the thousands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
A genuine (but potentially controversial) criticism of this wiki in its usage of classical philosophy
Replies
30
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
DemiiPowa
Defining Omnipotence
Replies
1
Views
801
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
SSB64
The Only Tier 0 is the Author
Replies
3
Views
1K
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
ThePrimalHunter
Rules On Rematches
Replies
1
Views
557
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Back
Top