I think that one of the things that is hard about a spirituality / religion forum (and this is one of the things that is hard about a politics forum too) is that people tend not to stick to relating their own experiences and beliefs instead they make claims about the way things are.

They then tend to resort to rhetoric (buzz words and catch phrases and over generalisations and mud slinging etc) instead of providing reasons for their claims. The former is using emotion in order to persuade while the latter is using reason in order to persuade. If one uses rhetoric and attempts to persuade by the emotive force of the words used then emotions tend to run high and disagreement can become fairly vehement indeed. If one uses reason, however, then progress can be made. Especially if people can agree on goals then often the dispute can be found to be localised to disagreement on the facts (of how best to achieve the goals) and then science can step on in to help...

Regarding subjective claims. If someone says what their experience is... Then it is senseless to disagree with that. E.g., 'I feel hot'. Doesn't matter if it is -30 if I feel hot then I feel hot and that is all there is to it.

If someone says what they believe... Then it is (fairly much) senseless to disagree with the fact that they believe it. E.g., 'I believe it is hot'. Doesn't matter if it is -30 if someone believes it is hot then that person believes it is hot and that is all there is to it.

If someone says what they believe is true of the world or they otherwise make a claim about how the world is... If someone says 'it is hot' (for example), then they could be wrong. It is not hot (temperaturewise) if it is -30. Beliefs can be false.

If people stick to reporting on their experiences or their beliefs then you can discuss politics and religion and all kinds of things without people getting upset. You can even have objective discussions about the world without people getting upset if you stick to use of rational reasons rather than emotional rhetoric.

People get upset when they take others to be denying their experiences or the fact that they believe what they say they believe primarily. They will also get upset if rhetoric is used, however. E.g., 'whoever is not for us is against us!' is a rhetorical device (creating a false dichotomy) that is used to persuade other people to do what you want (support you) by having them fear what you will do to them if you don't support them.

If people go beyond their experiences and make claims about the way the world is (and thus they way the world is for others) then problems start.

E.g., 'I believe that the only way to God is through Jesus'. That is a statement of what a person believes. Even more than that it is a statement of what a person believes to be true for them (thus it might be that the only way to God is through Jesus for the speaker but it leaves it open that other people might have other ways to God). 'For people of my faith the bible says 'the only way to God is through Jesus'' is also relativised to people of a particular faith.

If someone says 'the only way to god is through Jesus' then that seems to imply that the speaker believes it to be true for everyone, however. And that is insensitive to people of other faiths.

When people take someone to be making an objective claim (about the way things are for everyone or about the way the world is) then they are likely to feel upset if they disagree.

It doesn't matter if everyone is of the same faith...

But if the board is supposed to be for people of a variety of different faiths...

I don't know...

It is a tricky distinction to grasp... It can be hard to hear the difference...