They had this giant heave ho this afternoon, it was just mind boggling. I do not criticize what their intent was but another commenter came into the middle of the scrum and just totally destroyed what ever these people thought they were bringing. All he did was say that "All things begin with Christ." It just goes right over their heads. I'm not even sure if this is truly what they are about.
Just an added thought; If you are secure in your faith in the Risen Savior, NOTHING should upset you. You should have an answer for every question, every criticism, every attack. They just simply don't. Dismissing people off hand equals weakness.
I looked for that person who said that, and the first one I found was you, saying, "I would suggest backing up just a bit until you arrive at the True Authority in these matters, which would be the One Lord of All." CIAMM then affirmed that you and I were saying the same thing, and then the conversation suddenly took another turn I don't quite understand.
I watched all the conversations today and don't recall another one such as you describe and didn't find it in initial search. It's a bit difficult to field the OP charge if this characterization of what happened today is already a bit divergent from my experience.
Of course all things begin with Christ, we are all about that, and dealing with the issue of universalism seems to have worked well and now moved on to some other charge that I'd love to cognize with you.
If you are secure in your faith in the Risen Savior, NOTHING should upset you. You should have an answer for every question, every criticism, every attack.
For background, the exact tool by which we sent the message was not technically a modmail but a ban tool, which can be accessed a couple ways. The ban tool always immediately copies the first line of text into the public log, but also creates a modmail for ongoing private discussion. In the same way, whenever anyone makes a comment deleted by a mod, the first line of the comment remains log-visible in those subs that have public logs. AFAIK all other modmail is private besides the first lines of ban notes (with the general disclaimer that admins and staff may see it, let alone hackers).
Again Andy, I apologize for not keeping this in mind and not forestalling this from happening while we were monitoring the new posts feed. It is our policy generally to write ban notes and modmail in a neutral voice, each approximating the voice of the other, so that stylistic analysis does not reveal which mod is performing the action. We both spotted the post at almost the same time and agreed to ban while keeping an open discussion on our options; but that strategy failed due to escalation, so please accept my apology.
Correct. We routinely distinguish between calling a person by a name and calling an action by a name, as we don't want to delete everything whatsoever, and degrees of gradation sometimes make the difference.
Thank you. I didn't think you meant u/ColloidalAlumina because that person was exploring the limits of uncertainty about universalism, which I didn't think you sympathized with. So that explains that without explaining why it agreed with your mood today.
So, you've described a situation and I'm asking again, doesn't Matt. 18:15-17 indicate you should take it up privately and not spread these accusations about freely? Do you think you're taking it to the church? I'm interested about your views of Matt. 18 process (you could've contributed to the thread on that subject), but more important is that I make myself available to you for reconciliation.
Parallel-parked for visibility: u/Andy_Man45 asks, "Show me what you were being patient with."
From the public logs, I can say that 16 days ago you were deleted for a comment beginning "Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together". The full comment was flagged for "divisiveness" according to our own log due to its appearance as an attack.
39 days ago you were deleted for a comment beginning "First of all, start addressing the points of my comments instead of me. Judge not? Piroko attacking protestants is perfect example. I didn't cry about him, I answered his charges. You, being the fount". (Reference to u/Piroko.) The full comment was flagged for "inconsideration".
Usually we don't publicize selective aspects of the logs. Is that enough data, Andy, or would you like some additional review that I can help with? I've admitted being part of the problem, can you admit that your oblique style might be a contribution to the issue? Thanks.
The should be a simple resolution. Tell the mouth to act more like Christ, no? But as I've said all along, this is not what it is all about. You have your masters and I have mine. I'll just go away, don't worry over it.
From before my first comment at Win, when I spoke to the mods and admins, I told everyone that my earthly accountability is to SwampRangers.com, Scott Lively, First Century Bible Church, and my local elders.
Incidentally the mod team is considering all its options at this second, thanks for your patience. Obviously that's what the situation calls for.
Let me start the ball rolling though speaking only for myself. I have concluded that I have indeed personally failed you, because I was marginally aware that ban notices are public and I did not work to be proactive to modify practices so that any trending toward double-standard ban notices would be forestalled. But that's to say nothing about the mod board's responsibility for this ban, which is a separate issue. The best I can do to make it up to you is to keep with you and see what would be appropriate restitution. I often find that being the first to apologize on a small point can move us toward apologizing for the bigger things.
So now I have to go searching for all the times I was called ridiculous and a liar for my contributions to your blog, that you have never been aware of? If I go and do this, I'm going to come back here with me saying majority affirmed thoughts that were called lies by your resident hack. This is not already well known? Are you dismissing me again?
Sorry, there seems to be a bit of haste in your first sentence there, totally understandable.
I'm usually the one to do the back research for the team, I'm not making you do it. I'm not one to rely heavily on unstated implications of my words, which is why my posts run so long.
I'm not here to dismiss but to obey Scriptures about, insofar as possible with me, to be at peace with all men, and to lay my gift down and be reconciled it before presenting it at the altar.
I believe the same thing and this is why I, um, "cry" out. Go search for "liar" on your own blog and tell me who brings it. Are you an authoritarian or an elder?
I believe this is likely one particular mod. It seems as if individual mods have too much power and need some accountability to each other and the rest of the forum..
Fair enough, I agree. (As Proverbs says, Every story sounds true until the other side of the story is told, and the record is set straight ) Christianity is the place for this, because not all of the people here are per-se Christians. Or it could have been confined to Slechta's prayer thread, since Christians are there.
1 Cor 6: 1
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
1Co 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
1Co 6:3
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
1Co 6:7
To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
1Co 6:8
But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
This should apply to anything that relates to one Christian and another- including this.
We also need to be careful that we are, especially if we are mature believers or in a position of authority, circumspect and above reproach ourselves.
Titus 1:7
For an overseer as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
1:8
but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
1::9
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
I would say if you and Andy_Man 45 are at odds, the Christian Libertarian solution would not have been to broadcast this to GA (as he did), but to deal with it in the confines of the Christianity forum, and preferably by PM. I will check out your response, if a Mod has not already deleted the whole thread. (It happens, and sometimes the poster deletes them, as well.)
I just read this whole thread and don't think I received any blessings from it. It did make me consider Proverbs 13:3 and 17:28 (which maybe I should pay more attention to) . I'm a little curious as to what a token of eldership might be. Maybe I'll check out the Christianity.win sub (which I didn't even know existed).
Thanks for asking. Elders generally mean those appointed by leaders and approved by congregations to become new leaders, continuing since Jesus appointed the apostles, but consistent with how independent boards would lead cities, synagogues, or extended families prior to that. We just revamped the forum 24 hours ago and hope you like all the new features.
CIAMM, - can we talk about this later?, when your son is in a better state with his Burn-issues, just Mainly focus on your precious son now. -
Yet if you Insist on an answer now, Yes - I have personally Witnessed you call countless... people Names that I do not, with few exceptions. (Yes I also use judgmental words such as 'fool & idiot', but much less often than do you).
I really don't want to burden you with these issues now. -
With all my heart, I want your own adult son Healed, plus Accept Jesus as his ALL = Creator+ Daddy+ Teacher+ SAVIOR+ Best-friend+ Resurrector) okay :) You have the opportunity to Guide his steps towards becoming another Son of the Most High. This is my most fervent prayer now, truthfully.
Yes, this distinction applies to everyone. Someone says that sounds suspiciously like the enemy and another says you just called me Satan. People do need to learn logic and grammar.
Since u/Andy_Man45 is keeping up, can we perhaps frame it so far as to say we think he's been abusive, he thinks we've been abusive, we need to laugh and forgive as followers of Jesus whom he has forgiven, and we should swiftly negotiate the specific remedies we seek for the sake of the other contributors here? Specifically that we can initiate the commitment to seek not to abuse each other and walk forward without getting bogged down by the suspicion that that commitment will be itself rapidly abused.
Andy, I realize that I often get casual to the point of snark, and its use can be immoderate. I can commit to you to use a higher standard for evaluating and avoiding abusive language. Not to repeat myself too often, but, since the Lord compels me to, can you forgive us?
You've entertained an accusation, you've made a colorable case that you have a second witness, we're ready to talk about it. I'm trying to field the evidence you present but am not seeing much honestly, I'm seeing more the desire not to do the research. I did some of the searches and nothing unusual came up. It's not my job to prosecute myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer. We can hear everything you have, but not what you don't have.
3 He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction.
Yes. I couldn't agree more. We should all admonish when we see error, but behold, even in the midst of being called out for it, the rage. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm just putting it out there.
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, the two most active mods at c/Christianity, are available to discuss these charges, we always enjoy this kind of external thread. Did you want to provide sources?
The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack. On GAW the same reportable rule is stated as "respect other readers", but we haven't decided on reporting this thread, and would likely make such a decision in agreement.
A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?
Edit: I am personally quite lenient with these so-called "personal attacks," I believe freedom of speech should trump people's feelings. I think Andy_Man45's post shouldn't have been deleted, and I am fine with the ban message. I am just saying, if the moderators didn't want personal attacks, they should refrain from giving personal attacks themselves.
Without the intention of fanning any flames, can this all be treated as a bit of an impromptu “intervention”? Clearly Andy isn’t the only person to feel that sometimes moderation on c/Christianity can be a bit...personal sometimes.
Could it maybe be resolved, that we can seek to separate how we feel about a person overall, from their individual comments?
I personally feel I am “baggaged” by my past interactions with the mods. If I make a comment about one thing, someone dredges up a comment I made months ago about something else to attempt to invalidate what was just said. If I repeat a users words back to them I am being “incivil” , etc. etc. ...
How about, instead of rushing into removing comments, you (the mods) post a disclaimer first, laying out the issue with the comment. If objective belligerence is the response, then consider removals, and lastly, bans. Right now it seems like an unfortunate case of “respect mah authoritah” more than “let’s come together in Christ, while seeking to minimize error”...
Good idea! In fact we just posted that idea this morning: "Moderators have now migrated to a system where basic enforcement (exclusive of deliberate violations) follows a graduated track of verbal warning, then deletion, then 1- or 3-day ban." Andy has already had repeated deletions and the new post was more inappropriate than most anything I've seen from him, so the ban was consistent with these rules.
Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you is that it's obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log.
This would be a good point, out of respect for decorum and due process, to give the mod board a decent moment to evaluate the evidence presented before a secondary answer is provided.
I didn't say which of the four moderators did it. That admission would only be made by agreement of a majority of the board. I already admitted that I myself forgot and didn't address it proactively to prevent this from happening; it can be inferred that the other mods forgot as well.
We agreed that ban reasons are public information and they have always been accessible. What we forgot is to have civility and judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons.
Swampy - this response makes no sense, at least to me. For one thing, as Logical as you usually are: Why did you "Forget civility & judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons" ?
RE "I found this in c/Christianity/logs "A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby"
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?"
Hi u/Andy_Man45 - You were BANNED?? - But you just Voluntarily got back to the Forum, after Voluntarily leaving the last time you were called a "liar" repeatedly. -
Myself DIStancing after yesterday something Shocking was Disclosed to me, -
I do Not know what has befallen you this time around. You are a KNOWledgable christian who I look up to for that. For this selfish reason I want you to Stay in the forum. Maybe how much I Appreciate you doesn't mean much, that I can understand, but this latest disaster... is UNjust.
For the record, just because someone is promoted to "moderator"-status does NOT give them the right to LORD-over others & call them Abusive... names , simply because they can get away... with so doing. Swampy has told us before "US MODERATORS STICK TOGETHER" - iow there are "NO consequences for Abusive-moderator behavior" ??
Instead, such a moderator should be strongly Admonished to Self-moderate their own behavior.
Failure to so do, only encourages a moderator's Emotional abuse to continue... as evidently today once again. And - in c/Christianity/logs... that QUOTE is Nowhere's to be found. much like DS actions = trying to cover up actions already. Doubly shameful.
PS: re "We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby = what does that mean, & how is it even Addressing the issue ??
People are not just leaving the forum over other members, but also over the Moderators. - Dear Jesus please come take us HOME Quick...
You're mostly right, Rainbows. The ban note was a mild personal attack and the mod team is deciding what to do about it. And Andy returned voluntarily after a conflict, and yet we decided to give him another cool-off period because it appears that conflict jumped back to the surface and a block was the first thing we attempted, in accord with the block policy that we had previously just posted in the Improvements thread. (Remember when you asked us for better ban enforcement?)
There are consequences for abusive mod behavior, but they require more patience, process, and consultation because they are a more sensitive charge. We have privately disciplined ourselves in at least two cases where we were charged with imperfections. Usually that doesn't get published, but this relates to a public event, so it needs a public response.
I don't know what you mean by the quote not being found, we do not change or cover up the public logs after they are published and the quote is still visible at your link. The quote cuts off before the end, so "baby" was actually "babysitter". This is in reference to our recognition that sometimes an outburst is an expression of fight or flight (adrenalin or testosterone) and 3 days is a recommended cooling-off period on biological grounds. The intent is that the user recognize this too.
The best solution, Rainbows, is to wait patiently on the mod board for its resolution, and to speak positively where there is any virtue or praiseworthiness. Thank you for your bringing these points to light.
Thank you for that concession I never asked for. I thought you'd be a shoo-in for a unique perspective on the 95 Theses.
I've given tokens of my eldership. You also pledged yourself as a charter member of our Bible study. You and Jesus can talk that one out.
Would the concession be too much to ask that you work the issue out with us that we may make restitution to you and be forgiven, and that the issue be buried between us?
I don't "cry" about anything. I make others aware of it. You can prove me wrong, if you'd like. I'm not the one to remain silent about such things, sorry.
The c/Christianity moderators have concluded that the length of u/Andy_Man45's ban should be deferred to his own preference whether to retain it or to end it early. Since he has made statements that could be interpreted as supporting either option, we will base the answer on whether he expresses his preference plainly.
Andy, permanent was not listed as an option. We will be happy to interpret your comment to mean retain it as is and it will expire tomorrow, if we don't hear different.
I have been attempting to cognize your concerns in a way that results in resolution. The above is just one example of your declining to make that easy.
Because of this difficulty communicating, I'm going to need to come back with a different strategy. I will review your comments and pray about it some more.
I asked specific questions over at the other OP and you come here and make another announcement ^. I see this as you intentionally distancing yourself from those questions instead of just stating a position on them.
Before I proceed any further, let's see if we can reach agreement on one highly pertinent issue. Apart from the day that Easter is observed, a moderate disagreement over the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Filioque,) purgatory and, of course, the papacy, Eastern Orthodoxy and the rcc are the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but there have been many attempts, between the two, over the years, to enter back into communion together. The average member of the EO squashes this every time it arises because they do not want to be under the authority of the papacy (Imagine that, people wishing to speak their minds freely without wanton interdiction.)
Now we talk about "harm to the flock," as you have introduced as your excuse. Do you or do you not understand that some see the veneration of the dead and inanimate objects as harmful to the flock, due to the fact that God has made His position on these practices quite clear (see your own sidebar.) Do you or do you not understand that some view the continual sacrificing of Christ on the altar to be a blasphemy against His One Time Atonement of our sins? That is finished? Do you or do you not understand that some see the confession of sins to a spiritual "guide" other than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, who need no help from man and through Whom the torn veil gives us total access, as a leading of others into heresy?
Yet you have given moderation over to one who offends others. And you have confined universalism into the outer darkness (this is not a defense on behalf of universalism.) So you have indeed taken a stance, as I have charged.
Thank you for this very reasonable explanation. I'm not conscious of failing to answer questions, I tried to keep on all the cascades, ping me what I missed, and I'll look again too. Maybe it was while I was at Sabbath services.
CIAMM has made statements about strong similarities. For instance IIRC the four EO sees took the related position that the claimant to Peter's seat has certain primacies but without superiority, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the second seat, and that the original sees should only take action in unanimity, and they haven't changed that. But the basic rule for everyone is if you want to bash a practice use facts and logic. Bash the EO for what it is because calling it the RCC rhetorically creates so much smoke your fire goes out.
So specifics. Yes, no idols; atonement once for all; one mediator. Yes, veneration claims are perceived harmful and must be judged on what the apologetics say and whether the practice agrees with a Biblical apologetic or goes too far. Yes, claims of continual sacrifice are perceived blasphemous and must be judged the same way. Yes, confession of sins to human guides is perceived as leading to heresy, same. I've invited reference to CCC to see how they explain these and compare it with Scripture, but haven't taken initiative to review that recently.
The ticklishness is that among us real believers we need to accept that these two vast bodies are as aware of the Biblical standards as the Protestants, and they have made their claims in a public, transparent manner. Formal Protestant positions of rejection exist but are not nearly as developed. Among the real believers in Christ the issue ought always to be Romans 14. One man's conscience permits him to partake of the "host", another man's prohibits him. The phrase "let each be fully convinced in his own mind" means that we do have the power to agree to disagree. Paul and Barnabas parting ways, even amidst strong and emotional divergence, gives us an example of how to proceed if it requires separate polity too; but I'm mostly talking about separation of practice only. There's a position that the host is always idolatrous, and there's a position that the host easily becomes idolatrous, and that nuance is very important to maintain!
So let's feel free to open dialogue to pick on those three questions (but let's not be insensitive to those Catholics who are also watching). There is nothing implied by the fact that we finally got around to a statement on universalism, which was the debate of the day, but we didn't get around to a formal position on Catholic excess. You're concerned that it's a stance to let the discussion flow freely without tightening or chilling in any direction; but the forum rules are to use the creeds as a baseline, and near as these issues are I don't have a simple attack. "No idols", then counterargument "veneration is not idolatry", and then we have to define terms and tie things down. For the forum's sake it's a bit harder to pull the criticism directly from the creed or commandments. But it can be discussed as a Romans 14 community.
And there your other issue comes in: neither you nor we may engage activity that can be reasonably known to offend others. There the dialogue ought to be about what lines not to cross. Don't take offense if you get heated on a topic and I give you a mod warning that I think you crossed a line we discussed that you don't think you crossed. Instead, calmly and without escalation, appeal to me the reasons for your disagreement. Often in modding it's such a small issue that it's not worth the distraction from your original topic. But just as you're watching, you're being watched by others, and circumspection is the word. But we can certainly go forward discussing consistency of rules, and specific clarifications about Roman practice.
As a tentative trial on those, I'd say (1) we can establish semiformal descriptions of mod practice between us and reevaluate selected decisions in that light; (2) veneration relates to the language used in approving the practice versus the Biblical language brought to bear against both the base practice and its excesses (including, e.g., bowing down to humans in respect throughout the Bible); (3) mass relates to the nature of sacrifice (we are the body of Christ and we are a living sacrifice, so we need to define terms very closely); (4) confession of sins, and the shepherding movement in Protestantism, relate to the nature of "confess your sins one to another" versus the authority of God in direct relationship with him. Maybe you want to add others. If you're willing to consent to this, it would be a breath of fresh air to me to know that such a dialogue could proceed in such way as to not offend others who perceive us as taking too much liberty in speech (Romans 14 again) but still reach propositions that answer the concern.
Is that sufficient to say we can move forward with discussion like this and take forward steps like deferring your offenses against us to the judgment we would mutually reach in focusing on these topics, and deferring your demand that we relinquish the forum to be satisfied by what remediation and self-probation we might mutually agree to in that discussion?
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points 20 hours ago +3 / -0 Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
This one didn't ping either of us. My answer conveyed the ambiguity. Yes, as being corruption of the human creature before the infinitely holy God; no, as being two different misuses of human relations. (This is my third time.)
Pressing this objection and rephrasing it as you do in another comment is not likely to advance us much on the work we have before us. But maybe we can seize upon it as a segue: shall we add bad analogies to the list of things that we can work on regulating better in the future as part of our negotiation? You're not asking us just for rhetoric's sake, you actually want certain behavior to stop and to work toward that goal, right?
Good to see you this morning. Reviewing the past history has answered a lot of questions for me in supplying the missing evidences in your history. Looks like we can put a proposed resolution together for you pretty quickly.
Notice: The c/Christianity moderation board has agreed to accept this hidden thread and its companion thread as a structured semiprivate negotiation for resolving u/Andy_Man45's concerns. The board will be represented by myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer (CIAMM). Given the position and tolerance of the moderation board of c/GreatAwakening, this should serve as an equal hearing for all where resolutions can be reached.
All, please recognize that within the last 24 hours CIAMM has had a medical crisis in his immediate family that has now stabilized, but he has still committed to engage the negotiation to the greatest capacity possible.
The conclusion of the Christianity mod board for tonight is that we will treat you as having requested an appeal of your ban, and will follow up with you separately about that.
Our statement is not about denouncing himself. We made a decision to ban, and he objected, and so we are taking that as asking us to process a request that he be released from his ban early, even though he did not ask us that formally.
If there had been an immediate unanimous agreement to unban him, it would've happened; instead we agreed to keep discussing it and answer him later. I hope you understand the process.
u/Andy_Man45 has impassioned concerns and we need to communicate to understand those. Nothing I say is intended as asking him to denounce his concerns. I present him with facts that may redirect his stated goals and leave the decision to him.
I haven't been allowed an equal hearing yet. This is what I have to listen to at my "equal" hearing you spread crap everywhere. You are not being sincere or honest.
This is a limited public forum, not a government agency protected by a constitution guaranteeing equal hearings. We decide what an equal hearing is. I'm getting ready to post a separate comment about that.
I do not know why you think this case is still "open," it is not. The first time that I left was my appeal. That appeal was based on constantly being called a liar without evidence. Having conversations with other people being disrupted with false charges brought against me without any proof. I don't need it, I just don't. That's some forum y'all run over there, falsely accuse others and when they ask for evidence, delete them. I came back on a limited basis to see if there was any conciliations given on the previous personally motivated attacks. You cannot and have not shown me where I violated community or forum guidelines, either before or after. I have only "violated" the feelings of one person. Go back and look at the upvotes I received for these offensive comments. Look at the upvotes I received for this OP, during the short time it was aired, which clearly identifies one person, regardless of how you pretend not to be aware of it, these upvoters know what I speak of and apparently they agree.
You are afraid of the light. Think about it. Just like the catholics, they crossed mountains to kill off dissension, you crossed into another forum to kill off me. What are you afraid of discussing?
I don't even know why I bother. You serve a master, and not the same Master as I do.
This is a limited public forum, not a government agency protected by a constitution guaranteeing equal hearings.
No, this a forum that is conducted in the Name of Jesus Christ. We have been instructed to love all in Christ, islamists, freemasons, everyone. In reality, the only true forum guideline is Do Not Point Out The Errors Of The catholic "church." You have lords as you have stated and they have instructed you to assign a watchdog to me so that I do not violate the Golden Rule. I know this. I upset your lord's agenda.
Even though you have sold out, I still have sympathy for you. I know your hands are tied. How do I know this; just using the examples given in this comment thread, "crap," "garbage," calling me a baby, this is the way the Lord wishes us to speak to each other? It is not what comes out of your mouth? Everybody else can see it. Everybody else complains of it. Everybody else has left because of it and now you can add me to the list. Repopulate with shills, preach that old time religion where you speak and they shut up. You "won."
Appeal (see Bill Gothard for development) means reaching out with a request for remedy; what you did I'd call "distance", which is a totally useful method too.
I'm not afraid of light; you may not have yet realized how seriously I take the Bible's instruction that we must first attempt privately and that against elders (tangentially connected) we must have more circumspection, as you haven't addressed those implications directly. It's not about votes either, as mod tools are generally irrespective of votes, as the GAW board's decision to delete as off-topic shows (we requested instead deletion for the rule "respect other readers"). We crossed to this forum to follow your attack. Of course we should have anticipated that we might have that need if we chose to ban, and for neglecting that I apologize.
My protestation that I serve Jesus and have public earthly lines of accountability has not been received. There, I "named the Jew", the only man in heaven and earth who is my master. If you think I serve any other Jew, or any Roman or other, name him. Your hints are not useful and are damaging to the flock, and for them I may need to take personal steps if you think I've left anything unresolved that might invite such an accusation. But for now this page should suffice for that, as long as you honestly tell me what you mean. We can always get witnesses to judge.
No, this a forum that is conducted in the Name of Jesus Christ.
If only! GAW and even Christianity at large are officially conducted by Win Communities, which has an LLC that is responsible, and neither has ever been at large publicly responsible to Jesus. The tagline of Christianity, "in Jesus's name", was not originated as a guarantee of church discipline. However, since I had previously developed a model of how church discipline would work online, I discussed the matter with admin and was permitted to implement a true accountability structure under Jesus, for those members willing to commit to Bible study (not for all). We have just yesterday implemented another phase, allowing us to conduct more discussion among those members with greater enforcement against disruption. Now, technically we can count these two threads as duly constituted under the mod board which is under First Century Bible Church which is under Jesus, and believe me you will have every response Jesus directs; but it's not on account of GAW, but only by their permission. The question is: are you conducting yourself as if in a public forum under his name?
We have been instructed to love all in Christ, islamists, freemasons, everyone.
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). However, I find David was also charged with loving his enemies too much (2 Sam. 19:6), so I can understand if you'd like to refine this charge to be more specific.
In reality, the only true forum guideline is Do Not Point Out The Errors Of The catholic "church."
This seems an exaggeration of one or two events. Catholic criticism is welcome if it's not creedal criticism (which is regulated). We had u/Joujigun all over the place and I let him rant and barely engaged except to point out things like the word "priest" does appear in the Bible, which he had flatly denied as a proposition. I'm taking this as a concern about specific events that means we should (1) research and remediate the events and (2) establish a baseline understanding to prevent recurrence.
You have lords as you have stated and they have instructed you to assign a watchdog to me so that I do not violate the Golden Rule. I know this. I upset your lord's agenda.
I have Jesus and, on earth, the FCBC lines. We're pretty hard against soft Catholics. u/CuomoisaMassMurderer, did anyone assign you as a watchdog so that Andy not violate some pro-Catholic rule? It's more likely that Jesus assigned him to you to build toward the airing and resolution of your grievances, and that he and I have misused the good-cop bad-cop dynamic. He's been harsh, and we'll address that, I'm sure I have been too, but the use of tools has been level and we'd be happy to document details. You cannot upset my Lord's agenda.
The board's goal, for the sake of the forum and flock, is to negotiate so that CIAMM and I may be "gained" by you (Matt. 18:15) in relation to the offenses stated, that you may forgive the trespass. So my immediate purpose is, insofar as it is possible within me, to be at peace with you and obtain your forgiveness. This is why they permitted us to structure this discussion for this purpose. Another resolution is if you flatly state you cannot forgive us, in which case we have done our duty to you by making the attempt and we can watch for opportunity for another attempt. We hope we can resolve this bilaterally. Leaving the forum, badmouthing us and the forum, IMHO those are less important, but retaining an offense and holding a request in Jesus's name over us are matters I seek immediate reconciliation for.
Now to get to repeating your specifics, (1) You state you were called a liar, given false unproven charges and false accusations, and deleted, as "personally motivated attacks". (2) You allude to past events where you believe handling of Catholicism was imbalanced. (3) You cite "crap", "garbage", and "baby" in this thread as indication that more needs to be done. These all fall in a category that can be addressed by determining the extent of the offenses described here, remediating them through tools, apologizing honestly, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. While other issues might arise, it seems like these plus my initial list constitute enough to go forward with. CIAMM and I have already apologized and begun retractions of our behavior to address this list.
Only real question then: Do you consent to this previous paragraph's approach as an equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name?
You see, the thing about upvotes, people do not upvote what they do not agree with. Are you calling all of them liars that just want to "attack" you, as you've done with me?
I don't know what you mean, I upvote things I don't agree with all the time, if I think the line of thought needs encouragement or my disagreement is over a technicality.
Would you please not pick out one statement and ask me if I'm charging all these anons of lying when I have no idea who they are? Can you see how your question is less conducive to advancing dialogue?
What more sincerity can I give you beyond my profession before Jesus and my human accountability line? Should we invite Dr. Lively into our discussion around his busy schedule? Have you learned who his Lord is yet?
But those are just for my information. My real question is: how can we offer you the equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name that you seek?
Incidentally, and pertinently, I was led for other reasons to review this thread, where you promised to participate in a study that included your commitment to follow Matt. 18 if you had a dispute with me. CIAMM signed on as an auditor rather than a participant. Wouldn't you agree that your initial post in Christianity, "Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules", "False witness ...", contradicted your promise to participate? Asking for CIAMM and the flock. Or, I can give you an outclause, maybe when you transferred the Revelation study to me, you meant that you wanted me to strike you from the roll? Not important, just a matter bearing on how you want this hearing conducted.
"Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together".
This^ is apparently a banishable offense. That, taken together with the OP ^ that anyone can read. If these things are reason for deletion and banning then saying mary had a little lamb could be deleted.
They lie like their father.
I command you, swamp ranger and your pagan sidekick, in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, to relinquish your evil hold over the forum that purports to be also in His Name.
Nope, not banishable, I said the full comment appeared deletable on its face, and said that without republishing the whole of it, and a comment like this would not have suffice to rise to the block level like your attack post did.
The full comment was: 'Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together but they have no quarter for your prophesies nor for your preaching. You are in "error" or "liar." Let them burn hot with their false doctrines. There are many souls to be had, elsewhere.'
Remember that deletions are typically quick decisions and are appealable. When this was deleted, the deleting moderator relied both on your general tone and, your oblique statement "you are ... liar", and your accusation of "false doctrines" as constituting a deletable attack. The reason code was logged as "divisiveness". Yesterday before this drama segment I was reviewing logs and noticed that you may have meant not that your interlocutor was a liar but that you believed he was called a liar. That still leaves the false-doctrine charge but it does vitiate the gravity of the offense. Accordingly I will tell the mods to take this as an appeal of your two deletions.
Since your repeated request to relinquish is partly based on incomplete information, I will take that into account in my response and will also discuss it with CIAMM. The problem is that your other charges are not panning out either. However, we're considering whether we might be able to give a response that is above and beyond the level of the evidence presented out of conciliation. Your patience and consideration during this time will help, especially considering that CIAMM has just reported dealing with a serious injury in his immediate family.
I hear you brother.
I loved what a pastor in Florida often says, " don't follow me because eventually I'm going to let you down . Follow Jesus.
They had this giant heave ho this afternoon, it was just mind boggling. I do not criticize what their intent was but another commenter came into the middle of the scrum and just totally destroyed what ever these people thought they were bringing. All he did was say that "All things begin with Christ." It just goes right over their heads. I'm not even sure if this is truly what they are about.
Just an added thought; If you are secure in your faith in the Risen Savior, NOTHING should upset you. You should have an answer for every question, every criticism, every attack. They just simply don't. Dismissing people off hand equals weakness.
I looked for that person who said that, and the first one I found was you, saying, "I would suggest backing up just a bit until you arrive at the True Authority in these matters, which would be the One Lord of All." CIAMM then affirmed that you and I were saying the same thing, and then the conversation suddenly took another turn I don't quite understand.
I watched all the conversations today and don't recall another one such as you describe and didn't find it in initial search. It's a bit difficult to field the OP charge if this characterization of what happened today is already a bit divergent from my experience.
Of course all things begin with Christ, we are all about that, and dealing with the issue of universalism seems to have worked well and now moved on to some other charge that I'd love to cognize with you.
I affirm that.
–ColloidalAlumina 3 points 7 hours ago +3 / -0
Christ is the starting point of what Christianity is.
For background, the exact tool by which we sent the message was not technically a modmail but a ban tool, which can be accessed a couple ways. The ban tool always immediately copies the first line of text into the public log, but also creates a modmail for ongoing private discussion. In the same way, whenever anyone makes a comment deleted by a mod, the first line of the comment remains log-visible in those subs that have public logs. AFAIK all other modmail is private besides the first lines of ban notes (with the general disclaimer that admins and staff may see it, let alone hackers).
Again Andy, I apologize for not keeping this in mind and not forestalling this from happening while we were monitoring the new posts feed. It is our policy generally to write ban notes and modmail in a neutral voice, each approximating the voice of the other, so that stylistic analysis does not reveal which mod is performing the action. We both spotted the post at almost the same time and agreed to ban while keeping an open discussion on our options; but that strategy failed due to escalation, so please accept my apology.
Correct. We routinely distinguish between calling a person by a name and calling an action by a name, as we don't want to delete everything whatsoever, and degrees of gradation sometimes make the difference.
It looks like a nonconstant length under 200 characters. They appear in c/christianity/logs; mod's names and mod's user notes are not public.
Thank you. I didn't think you meant u/ColloidalAlumina because that person was exploring the limits of uncertainty about universalism, which I didn't think you sympathized with. So that explains that without explaining why it agreed with your mood today.
So, you've described a situation and I'm asking again, doesn't Matt. 18:15-17 indicate you should take it up privately and not spread these accusations about freely? Do you think you're taking it to the church? I'm interested about your views of Matt. 18 process (you could've contributed to the thread on that subject), but more important is that I make myself available to you for reconciliation.
Reverse your question. I get "ridiculous" and "liar" as a first response, open forum. I have no way to respond without being deleted. Authoritarian.
Parallel-parked for visibility: u/Andy_Man45 asks, "Show me what you were being patient with."
From the public logs, I can say that 16 days ago you were deleted for a comment beginning "Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together". The full comment was flagged for "divisiveness" according to our own log due to its appearance as an attack.
39 days ago you were deleted for a comment beginning "First of all, start addressing the points of my comments instead of me. Judge not? Piroko attacking protestants is perfect example. I didn't cry about him, I answered his charges. You, being the fount". (Reference to u/Piroko.) The full comment was flagged for "inconsideration".
Usually we don't publicize selective aspects of the logs. Is that enough data, Andy, or would you like some additional review that I can help with? I've admitted being part of the problem, can you admit that your oblique style might be a contribution to the issue? Thanks.
Show me what you were being patient with. Yes, you are now trapped. Go on, get it, my lord.
The should be a simple resolution. Tell the mouth to act more like Christ, no? But as I've said all along, this is not what it is all about. You have your masters and I have mine. I'll just go away, don't worry over it.
From before my first comment at Win, when I spoke to the mods and admins, I told everyone that my earthly accountability is to SwampRangers.com, Scott Lively, First Century Bible Church, and my local elders.
Incidentally the mod team is considering all its options at this second, thanks for your patience. Obviously that's what the situation calls for.
Let me start the ball rolling though speaking only for myself. I have concluded that I have indeed personally failed you, because I was marginally aware that ban notices are public and I did not work to be proactive to modify practices so that any trending toward double-standard ban notices would be forestalled. But that's to say nothing about the mod board's responsibility for this ban, which is a separate issue. The best I can do to make it up to you is to keep with you and see what would be appropriate restitution. I often find that being the first to apologize on a small point can move us toward apologizing for the bigger things.
So now I have to go searching for all the times I was called ridiculous and a liar for my contributions to your blog, that you have never been aware of? If I go and do this, I'm going to come back here with me saying majority affirmed thoughts that were called lies by your resident hack. This is not already well known? Are you dismissing me again?
Thy don't even like his name is what you were told just this very day. Now you act like you are unaware?
Sorry, there seems to be a bit of haste in your first sentence there, totally understandable.
I'm usually the one to do the back research for the team, I'm not making you do it. I'm not one to rely heavily on unstated implications of my words, which is why my posts run so long.
I'm not here to dismiss but to obey Scriptures about, insofar as possible with me, to be at peace with all men, and to lay my gift down and be reconciled it before presenting it at the altar.
I believe the same thing and this is why I, um, "cry" out. Go search for "liar" on your own blog and tell me who brings it. Are you an authoritarian or an elder?
This search yielded nothing unusual at a quick pass. Can you inform me of a search that better illustrates your concerns?
I've been settled as a Christian libertarian since Constitution Day 2007. I have an elder capacity over the Bible studies.
Would it help if I addressed you as "my lord?"
Yes, you know everything, my lord.
I believe this is likely one particular mod. It seems as if individual mods have too much power and need some accountability to each other and the rest of the forum..
Fair enough, I agree. (As Proverbs says, Every story sounds true until the other side of the story is told, and the record is set straight ) Christianity is the place for this, because not all of the people here are per-se Christians. Or it could have been confined to Slechta's prayer thread, since Christians are there.
1 Cor 6: 1
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 1Co 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 1Co 6:3
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 1Co 6:7
To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 1Co 6:8
But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
This should apply to anything that relates to one Christian and another- including this.
We also need to be careful that we are, especially if we are mature believers or in a position of authority, circumspect and above reproach ourselves.
Titus 1:7 For an overseer as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 1:8
but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 1::9
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
I would say if you and Andy_Man 45 are at odds, the Christian Libertarian solution would not have been to broadcast this to GA (as he did), but to deal with it in the confines of the Christianity forum, and preferably by PM. I will check out your response, if a Mod has not already deleted the whole thread. (It happens, and sometimes the poster deletes them, as well.)
Yes, it is and yes, they need to look into it. Why they don't already see it should be of concern.
I just read this whole thread and don't think I received any blessings from it. It did make me consider Proverbs 13:3 and 17:28 (which maybe I should pay more attention to) . I'm a little curious as to what a token of eldership might be. Maybe I'll check out the Christianity.win sub (which I didn't even know existed).
Thanks for asking. Elders generally mean those appointed by leaders and approved by congregations to become new leaders, continuing since Jesus appointed the apostles, but consistent with how independent boards would lead cities, synagogues, or extended families prior to that. We just revamped the forum 24 hours ago and hope you like all the new features.
"Responsible Christian elders" was not the issue here.
Moderator(s) taking license... to act emotionally abusive, & Repeatedly is the issue.
CIAMM, - can we talk about this later?, when your son is in a better state with his Burn-issues, just Mainly focus on your precious son now. -
Yet if you Insist on an answer now, Yes - I have personally Witnessed you call countless... people Names that I do not, with few exceptions. (Yes I also use judgmental words such as 'fool & idiot', but much less often than do you).
I really don't want to burden you with these issues now. -
With all my heart, I want your own adult son Healed, plus Accept Jesus as his ALL = Creator+ Daddy+ Teacher+ SAVIOR+ Best-friend+ Resurrector) okay :) You have the opportunity to Guide his steps towards becoming another Son of the Most High. This is my most fervent prayer now, truthfully.
Okay ?
Yes, this distinction applies to everyone. Someone says that sounds suspiciously like the enemy and another says you just called me Satan. People do need to learn logic and grammar.
Since u/Andy_Man45 is keeping up, can we perhaps frame it so far as to say we think he's been abusive, he thinks we've been abusive, we need to laugh and forgive as followers of Jesus whom he has forgiven, and we should swiftly negotiate the specific remedies we seek for the sake of the other contributors here? Specifically that we can initiate the commitment to seek not to abuse each other and walk forward without getting bogged down by the suspicion that that commitment will be itself rapidly abused.
Andy, I realize that I often get casual to the point of snark, and its use can be immoderate. I can commit to you to use a higher standard for evaluating and avoiding abusive language. Not to repeat myself too often, but, since the Lord compels me to, can you forgive us?
Thank you. Funny how they do not want to talk about, or show, any of that.
You've entertained an accusation, you've made a colorable case that you have a second witness, we're ready to talk about it. I'm trying to field the evidence you present but am not seeing much honestly, I'm seeing more the desire not to do the research. I did some of the searches and nothing unusual came up. It's not my job to prosecute myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer. We can hear everything you have, but not what you don't have.
3 He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction.
Yes. I couldn't agree more. We should all admonish when we see error, but behold, even in the midst of being called out for it, the rage. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm just putting it out there.
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, the two most active mods at c/Christianity, are available to discuss these charges, we always enjoy this kind of external thread. Did you want to provide sources?
Why did you delete my post?
The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack. On GAW the same reportable rule is stated as "respect other readers", but we haven't decided on reporting this thread, and would likely make such a decision in agreement.
Why didn't you contact us privately with the same concern, a subject all 3 of us and others were just talking about in a related situation? https://communities.win/send?user=c:Christianity
"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" (1 Tim. 5:19 KJV). Might that apply?
I found this in c/Christianity/logs
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?
Edit: I am personally quite lenient with these so-called "personal attacks," I believe freedom of speech should trump people's feelings. I think Andy_Man45's post shouldn't have been deleted, and I am fine with the ban message. I am just saying, if the moderators didn't want personal attacks, they should refrain from giving personal attacks themselves.
Without the intention of fanning any flames, can this all be treated as a bit of an impromptu “intervention”? Clearly Andy isn’t the only person to feel that sometimes moderation on c/Christianity can be a bit...personal sometimes.
Could it maybe be resolved, that we can seek to separate how we feel about a person overall, from their individual comments?
I personally feel I am “baggaged” by my past interactions with the mods. If I make a comment about one thing, someone dredges up a comment I made months ago about something else to attempt to invalidate what was just said. If I repeat a users words back to them I am being “incivil” , etc. etc. ...
How about, instead of rushing into removing comments, you (the mods) post a disclaimer first, laying out the issue with the comment. If objective belligerence is the response, then consider removals, and lastly, bans. Right now it seems like an unfortunate case of “respect mah authoritah” more than “let’s come together in Christ, while seeking to minimize error”...
Just my $0.02
Good idea! In fact we just posted that idea this morning: "Moderators have now migrated to a system where basic enforcement (exclusive of deliberate violations) follows a graduated track of verbal warning, then deletion, then 1- or 3-day ban." Andy has already had repeated deletions and the new post was more inappropriate than most anything I've seen from him, so the ban was consistent with these rules.
Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you is that it's obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log.
This would be a good point, out of respect for decorum and due process, to give the mod board a decent moment to evaluate the evidence presented before a secondary answer is provided.
Um, did I really deserve that?
Okay, my lord.
re "Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you
obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log." - So where is the Transparency??
I didn't say which of the four moderators did it. That admission would only be made by agreement of a majority of the board. I already admitted that I myself forgot and didn't address it proactively to prevent this from happening; it can be inferred that the other mods forgot as well.
We agreed that ban reasons are public information and they have always been accessible. What we forgot is to have civility and judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons.
Swampy - this response makes no sense, at least to me. For one thing, as Logical as you usually are: Why did you "Forget civility & judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons" ?
RE "I found this in c/Christianity/logs "A moderator banned user Andy_Man45 - 3 days with reason: Stop acting a fool. Disruption of the community is not the purpose. We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby"
If u/Andy_Man45's post is a "disruptive personal attack," which mod had the idea of responding to him with a personal attack too?"
Hi u/Andy_Man45 - You were BANNED?? - But you just Voluntarily got back to the Forum, after Voluntarily leaving the last time you were called a "liar" repeatedly. -
Myself DIStancing after yesterday something Shocking was Disclosed to me, -
I do Not know what has befallen you this time around. You are a KNOWledgable christian who I look up to for that. For this selfish reason I want you to Stay in the forum. Maybe how much I Appreciate you doesn't mean much, that I can understand, but this latest disaster... is UNjust.
For the record, just because someone is promoted to "moderator"-status does NOT give them the right to LORD-over others & call them Abusive... names , simply because they can get away... with so doing. Swampy has told us before "US MODERATORS STICK TOGETHER" - iow there are "NO consequences for Abusive-moderator behavior" ??
Instead, such a moderator should be strongly Admonished to Self-moderate their own behavior.
Failure to so do, only encourages a moderator's Emotional abuse to continue... as evidently today once again. And - in c/Christianity/logs... that QUOTE is Nowhere's to be found. much like DS actions = trying to cover up actions already. Doubly shameful.
PS: re "We should expect your hormonal balance to have your feathers ruffled for 3 days, during which you'd need a baby = what does that mean, & how is it even Addressing the issue ??
People are not just leaving the forum over other members, but also over the Moderators. - Dear Jesus please come take us HOME Quick...
You're mostly right, Rainbows. The ban note was a mild personal attack and the mod team is deciding what to do about it. And Andy returned voluntarily after a conflict, and yet we decided to give him another cool-off period because it appears that conflict jumped back to the surface and a block was the first thing we attempted, in accord with the block policy that we had previously just posted in the Improvements thread. (Remember when you asked us for better ban enforcement?)
There are consequences for abusive mod behavior, but they require more patience, process, and consultation because they are a more sensitive charge. We have privately disciplined ourselves in at least two cases where we were charged with imperfections. Usually that doesn't get published, but this relates to a public event, so it needs a public response.
I don't know what you mean by the quote not being found, we do not change or cover up the public logs after they are published and the quote is still visible at your link. The quote cuts off before the end, so "baby" was actually "babysitter". This is in reference to our recognition that sometimes an outburst is an expression of fight or flight (adrenalin or testosterone) and 3 days is a recommended cooling-off period on biological grounds. The intent is that the user recognize this too.
The best solution, Rainbows, is to wait patiently on the mod board for its resolution, and to speak positively where there is any virtue or praiseworthiness. Thank you for your bringing these points to light.
You are not acting as an elder. You are acting as an authority. Let's start off correctly.
I have my witnesses, by the way, would you like to compare upvotes?
The mod board decided to delete your post because it was presented as a disruptive personal attack.
Shine any light you want on me, I will stand before it, without shame. You, not so much.
Look, I will cut this short, on your behalf. I vow never again to post in your corrupted forum. You and your masters perung or whatever can have it.
.
Thank you for that concession I never asked for. I thought you'd be a shoo-in for a unique perspective on the 95 Theses.
I've given tokens of my eldership. You also pledged yourself as a charter member of our Bible study. You and Jesus can talk that one out.
Would the concession be too much to ask that you work the issue out with us that we may make restitution to you and be forgiven, and that the issue be buried between us?
Are you the person who was crying a few weeks ago?
I don't "cry" about anything. I make others aware of it. You can prove me wrong, if you'd like. I'm not the one to remain silent about such things, sorry.
The c/Christianity moderators have concluded that the length of u/Andy_Man45's ban should be deferred to his own preference whether to retain it or to end it early. Since he has made statements that could be interpreted as supporting either option, we will base the answer on whether he expresses his preference plainly.
Make it permanent.
Andy, permanent was not listed as an option. We will be happy to interpret your comment to mean retain it as is and it will expire tomorrow, if we don't hear different.
I have been attempting to cognize your concerns in a way that results in resolution. The above is just one example of your declining to make that easy.
For another, you say "I haven't been allowed an equal hearing yet. This is what I have to listen to at my "equal" hearing you spread crap everywhere." Your immediate next comment declines to "listen to the pagan run his filthy, low IQ mouth." Logically, you're saying these threads are not an equal hearing because of a particular mild insult from CIAMM, but you immediately assert your right to engage similar particular insults. This is the very double standard you accused us of, not equality. Either request that everyone refrain from insults, or allow everyone to insult equally, or release the implied request for an equal hearing.
Because of this difficulty communicating, I'm going to need to come back with a different strategy. I will review your comments and pray about it some more.
I asked specific questions over at the other OP and you come here and make another announcement ^. I see this as you intentionally distancing yourself from those questions instead of just stating a position on them.
Before I proceed any further, let's see if we can reach agreement on one highly pertinent issue. Apart from the day that Easter is observed, a moderate disagreement over the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Filioque,) purgatory and, of course, the papacy, Eastern Orthodoxy and the rcc are the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but there have been many attempts, between the two, over the years, to enter back into communion together. The average member of the EO squashes this every time it arises because they do not want to be under the authority of the papacy (Imagine that, people wishing to speak their minds freely without wanton interdiction.)
Now we talk about "harm to the flock," as you have introduced as your excuse. Do you or do you not understand that some see the veneration of the dead and inanimate objects as harmful to the flock, due to the fact that God has made His position on these practices quite clear (see your own sidebar.) Do you or do you not understand that some view the continual sacrificing of Christ on the altar to be a blasphemy against His One Time Atonement of our sins? That is finished? Do you or do you not understand that some see the confession of sins to a spiritual "guide" other than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, who need no help from man and through Whom the torn veil gives us total access, as a leading of others into heresy?
Yet you have given moderation over to one who offends others. And you have confined universalism into the outer darkness (this is not a defense on behalf of universalism.) So you have indeed taken a stance, as I have charged.
Thank you for this very reasonable explanation. I'm not conscious of failing to answer questions, I tried to keep on all the cascades, ping me what I missed, and I'll look again too. Maybe it was while I was at Sabbath services.
CIAMM has made statements about strong similarities. For instance IIRC the four EO sees took the related position that the claimant to Peter's seat has certain primacies but without superiority, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the second seat, and that the original sees should only take action in unanimity, and they haven't changed that. But the basic rule for everyone is if you want to bash a practice use facts and logic. Bash the EO for what it is because calling it the RCC rhetorically creates so much smoke your fire goes out.
So specifics. Yes, no idols; atonement once for all; one mediator. Yes, veneration claims are perceived harmful and must be judged on what the apologetics say and whether the practice agrees with a Biblical apologetic or goes too far. Yes, claims of continual sacrifice are perceived blasphemous and must be judged the same way. Yes, confession of sins to human guides is perceived as leading to heresy, same. I've invited reference to CCC to see how they explain these and compare it with Scripture, but haven't taken initiative to review that recently.
The ticklishness is that among us real believers we need to accept that these two vast bodies are as aware of the Biblical standards as the Protestants, and they have made their claims in a public, transparent manner. Formal Protestant positions of rejection exist but are not nearly as developed. Among the real believers in Christ the issue ought always to be Romans 14. One man's conscience permits him to partake of the "host", another man's prohibits him. The phrase "let each be fully convinced in his own mind" means that we do have the power to agree to disagree. Paul and Barnabas parting ways, even amidst strong and emotional divergence, gives us an example of how to proceed if it requires separate polity too; but I'm mostly talking about separation of practice only. There's a position that the host is always idolatrous, and there's a position that the host easily becomes idolatrous, and that nuance is very important to maintain!
So let's feel free to open dialogue to pick on those three questions (but let's not be insensitive to those Catholics who are also watching). There is nothing implied by the fact that we finally got around to a statement on universalism, which was the debate of the day, but we didn't get around to a formal position on Catholic excess. You're concerned that it's a stance to let the discussion flow freely without tightening or chilling in any direction; but the forum rules are to use the creeds as a baseline, and near as these issues are I don't have a simple attack. "No idols", then counterargument "veneration is not idolatry", and then we have to define terms and tie things down. For the forum's sake it's a bit harder to pull the criticism directly from the creed or commandments. But it can be discussed as a Romans 14 community.
And there your other issue comes in: neither you nor we may engage activity that can be reasonably known to offend others. There the dialogue ought to be about what lines not to cross. Don't take offense if you get heated on a topic and I give you a mod warning that I think you crossed a line we discussed that you don't think you crossed. Instead, calmly and without escalation, appeal to me the reasons for your disagreement. Often in modding it's such a small issue that it's not worth the distraction from your original topic. But just as you're watching, you're being watched by others, and circumspection is the word. But we can certainly go forward discussing consistency of rules, and specific clarifications about Roman practice.
As a tentative trial on those, I'd say (1) we can establish semiformal descriptions of mod practice between us and reevaluate selected decisions in that light; (2) veneration relates to the language used in approving the practice versus the Biblical language brought to bear against both the base practice and its excesses (including, e.g., bowing down to humans in respect throughout the Bible); (3) mass relates to the nature of sacrifice (we are the body of Christ and we are a living sacrifice, so we need to define terms very closely); (4) confession of sins, and the shepherding movement in Protestantism, relate to the nature of "confess your sins one to another" versus the authority of God in direct relationship with him. Maybe you want to add others. If you're willing to consent to this, it would be a breath of fresh air to me to know that such a dialogue could proceed in such way as to not offend others who perceive us as taking too much liberty in speech (Romans 14 again) but still reach propositions that answer the concern.
Is that sufficient to say we can move forward with discussion like this and take forward steps like deferring your offenses against us to the judgment we would mutually reach in focusing on these topics, and deferring your demand that we relinquish the forum to be satisfied by what remediation and self-probation we might mutually agree to in that discussion?
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points 20 hours ago +3 / -0 Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
Do you, SR, agree with this?
Don't give me a long babbling non-answer, the answer is either yes or no, was my conduct at the blog comparable to "4 guys raping a 13 year old?"
This one didn't ping either of us. My answer conveyed the ambiguity. Yes, as being corruption of the human creature before the infinitely holy God; no, as being two different misuses of human relations. (This is my third time.)
Pressing this objection and rephrasing it as you do in another comment is not likely to advance us much on the work we have before us. But maybe we can seize upon it as a segue: shall we add bad analogies to the list of things that we can work on regulating better in the future as part of our negotiation? You're not asking us just for rhetoric's sake, you actually want certain behavior to stop and to work toward that goal, right?
I'd said, "In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one." (https://communities.win/p/13zgNkKr04/x/c/4JFq7sAr8jr)
Good to see you this morning. Reviewing the past history has answered a lot of questions for me in supplying the missing evidences in your history. Looks like we can put a proposed resolution together for you pretty quickly.
I sinned against God?
Notice: The c/Christianity moderation board has agreed to accept this hidden thread and its companion thread as a structured semiprivate negotiation for resolving u/Andy_Man45's concerns. The board will be represented by myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer (CIAMM). Given the position and tolerance of the moderation board of c/GreatAwakening, this should serve as an equal hearing for all where resolutions can be reached.
All, please recognize that within the last 24 hours CIAMM has had a medical crisis in his immediate family that has now stabilized, but he has still committed to engage the negotiation to the greatest capacity possible.
The conclusion of the Christianity mod board for tonight is that we will treat you as having requested an appeal of your ban, and will follow up with you separately about that.
Discussion and negotiation remains open.
RE "we will treat you as having requested an appeal of your ban"
That sounds similar to the Ultimatum given to Jesus & the Apostles = "Just Denounce yourself &
everything, & we can be good."
Our statement is not about denouncing himself. We made a decision to ban, and he objected, and so we are taking that as asking us to process a request that he be released from his ban early, even though he did not ask us that formally.
If there had been an immediate unanimous agreement to unban him, it would've happened; instead we agreed to keep discussing it and answer him later. I hope you understand the process.
u/Andy_Man45 has impassioned concerns and we need to communicate to understand those. Nothing I say is intended as asking him to denounce his concerns. I present him with facts that may redirect his stated goals and leave the decision to him.
I haven't been allowed an equal hearing yet. This is what I have to listen to at my "equal" hearing you spread crap everywhere. You are not being sincere or honest.
This is a limited public forum, not a government agency protected by a constitution guaranteeing equal hearings. We decide what an equal hearing is. I'm getting ready to post a separate comment about that.
I do not know why you think this case is still "open," it is not. The first time that I left was my appeal. That appeal was based on constantly being called a liar without evidence. Having conversations with other people being disrupted with false charges brought against me without any proof. I don't need it, I just don't. That's some forum y'all run over there, falsely accuse others and when they ask for evidence, delete them. I came back on a limited basis to see if there was any conciliations given on the previous personally motivated attacks. You cannot and have not shown me where I violated community or forum guidelines, either before or after. I have only "violated" the feelings of one person. Go back and look at the upvotes I received for these offensive comments. Look at the upvotes I received for this OP, during the short time it was aired, which clearly identifies one person, regardless of how you pretend not to be aware of it, these upvoters know what I speak of and apparently they agree.
You are afraid of the light. Think about it. Just like the catholics, they crossed mountains to kill off dissension, you crossed into another forum to kill off me. What are you afraid of discussing?
I don't even know why I bother. You serve a master, and not the same Master as I do.
This is a limited public forum, not a government agency protected by a constitution guaranteeing equal hearings.
No, this a forum that is conducted in the Name of Jesus Christ. We have been instructed to love all in Christ, islamists, freemasons, everyone. In reality, the only true forum guideline is Do Not Point Out The Errors Of The catholic "church." You have lords as you have stated and they have instructed you to assign a watchdog to me so that I do not violate the Golden Rule. I know this. I upset your lord's agenda.
Even though you have sold out, I still have sympathy for you. I know your hands are tied. How do I know this; just using the examples given in this comment thread, "crap," "garbage," calling me a baby, this is the way the Lord wishes us to speak to each other? It is not what comes out of your mouth? Everybody else can see it. Everybody else complains of it. Everybody else has left because of it and now you can add me to the list. Repopulate with shills, preach that old time religion where you speak and they shut up. You "won."
Placeholder acknowledgment, will answer next.
Appeal (see Bill Gothard for development) means reaching out with a request for remedy; what you did I'd call "distance", which is a totally useful method too.
I'm not afraid of light; you may not have yet realized how seriously I take the Bible's instruction that we must first attempt privately and that against elders (tangentially connected) we must have more circumspection, as you haven't addressed those implications directly. It's not about votes either, as mod tools are generally irrespective of votes, as the GAW board's decision to delete as off-topic shows (we requested instead deletion for the rule "respect other readers"). We crossed to this forum to follow your attack. Of course we should have anticipated that we might have that need if we chose to ban, and for neglecting that I apologize.
My protestation that I serve Jesus and have public earthly lines of accountability has not been received. There, I "named the Jew", the only man in heaven and earth who is my master. If you think I serve any other Jew, or any Roman or other, name him. Your hints are not useful and are damaging to the flock, and for them I may need to take personal steps if you think I've left anything unresolved that might invite such an accusation. But for now this page should suffice for that, as long as you honestly tell me what you mean. We can always get witnesses to judge.
If only! GAW and even Christianity at large are officially conducted by Win Communities, which has an LLC that is responsible, and neither has ever been at large publicly responsible to Jesus. The tagline of Christianity, "in Jesus's name", was not originated as a guarantee of church discipline. However, since I had previously developed a model of how church discipline would work online, I discussed the matter with admin and was permitted to implement a true accountability structure under Jesus, for those members willing to commit to Bible study (not for all). We have just yesterday implemented another phase, allowing us to conduct more discussion among those members with greater enforcement against disruption. Now, technically we can count these two threads as duly constituted under the mod board which is under First Century Bible Church which is under Jesus, and believe me you will have every response Jesus directs; but it's not on account of GAW, but only by their permission. The question is: are you conducting yourself as if in a public forum under his name?
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). However, I find David was also charged with loving his enemies too much (2 Sam. 19:6), so I can understand if you'd like to refine this charge to be more specific.
This seems an exaggeration of one or two events. Catholic criticism is welcome if it's not creedal criticism (which is regulated). We had u/Joujigun all over the place and I let him rant and barely engaged except to point out things like the word "priest" does appear in the Bible, which he had flatly denied as a proposition. I'm taking this as a concern about specific events that means we should (1) research and remediate the events and (2) establish a baseline understanding to prevent recurrence.
I have Jesus and, on earth, the FCBC lines. We're pretty hard against soft Catholics. u/CuomoisaMassMurderer, did anyone assign you as a watchdog so that Andy not violate some pro-Catholic rule? It's more likely that Jesus assigned him to you to build toward the airing and resolution of your grievances, and that he and I have misused the good-cop bad-cop dynamic. He's been harsh, and we'll address that, I'm sure I have been too, but the use of tools has been level and we'd be happy to document details. You cannot upset my Lord's agenda.
The board's goal, for the sake of the forum and flock, is to negotiate so that CIAMM and I may be "gained" by you (Matt. 18:15) in relation to the offenses stated, that you may forgive the trespass. So my immediate purpose is, insofar as it is possible within me, to be at peace with you and obtain your forgiveness. This is why they permitted us to structure this discussion for this purpose. Another resolution is if you flatly state you cannot forgive us, in which case we have done our duty to you by making the attempt and we can watch for opportunity for another attempt. We hope we can resolve this bilaterally. Leaving the forum, badmouthing us and the forum, IMHO those are less important, but retaining an offense and holding a request in Jesus's name over us are matters I seek immediate reconciliation for.
Now to get to repeating your specifics, (1) You state you were called a liar, given false unproven charges and false accusations, and deleted, as "personally motivated attacks". (2) You allude to past events where you believe handling of Catholicism was imbalanced. (3) You cite "crap", "garbage", and "baby" in this thread as indication that more needs to be done. These all fall in a category that can be addressed by determining the extent of the offenses described here, remediating them through tools, apologizing honestly, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. While other issues might arise, it seems like these plus my initial list constitute enough to go forward with. CIAMM and I have already apologized and begun retractions of our behavior to address this list.
Only real question then: Do you consent to this previous paragraph's approach as an equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name?
You see, the thing about upvotes, people do not upvote what they do not agree with. Are you calling all of them liars that just want to "attack" you, as you've done with me?
I'm not feeling the sincerity.
I don't know what you mean, I upvote things I don't agree with all the time, if I think the line of thought needs encouragement or my disagreement is over a technicality.
Would you please not pick out one statement and ask me if I'm charging all these anons of lying when I have no idea who they are? Can you see how your question is less conducive to advancing dialogue?
What more sincerity can I give you beyond my profession before Jesus and my human accountability line? Should we invite Dr. Lively into our discussion around his busy schedule? Have you learned who his Lord is yet?
But those are just for my information. My real question is: how can we offer you the equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name that you seek?
Incidentally, and pertinently, I was led for other reasons to review this thread, where you promised to participate in a study that included your commitment to follow Matt. 18 if you had a dispute with me. CIAMM signed on as an auditor rather than a participant. Wouldn't you agree that your initial post in Christianity, "Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules", "False witness ...", contradicted your promise to participate? Asking for CIAMM and the flock. Or, I can give you an outclause, maybe when you transferred the Revelation study to me, you meant that you wanted me to strike you from the roll? Not important, just a matter bearing on how you want this hearing conducted.
"Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules"
I had to go to another forum to even speak at all and I'm at fault? You just don't see the problem, do you?
This is what they have so far -
"Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together".
This^ is apparently a banishable offense. That, taken together with the OP ^ that anyone can read. If these things are reason for deletion and banning then saying mary had a little lamb could be deleted.
They lie like their father.
I command you, swamp ranger and your pagan sidekick, in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, to relinquish your evil hold over the forum that purports to be also in His Name.
Nope, not banishable, I said the full comment appeared deletable on its face, and said that without republishing the whole of it, and a comment like this would not have suffice to rise to the block level like your attack post did.
The full comment was: 'Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together but they have no quarter for your prophesies nor for your preaching. You are in "error" or "liar." Let them burn hot with their false doctrines. There are many souls to be had, elsewhere.'
Remember that deletions are typically quick decisions and are appealable. When this was deleted, the deleting moderator relied both on your general tone and, your oblique statement "you are ... liar", and your accusation of "false doctrines" as constituting a deletable attack. The reason code was logged as "divisiveness". Yesterday before this drama segment I was reviewing logs and noticed that you may have meant not that your interlocutor was a liar but that you believed he was called a liar. That still leaves the false-doctrine charge but it does vitiate the gravity of the offense. Accordingly I will tell the mods to take this as an appeal of your two deletions.
Since your repeated request to relinquish is partly based on incomplete information, I will take that into account in my response and will also discuss it with CIAMM. The problem is that your other charges are not panning out either. However, we're considering whether we might be able to give a response that is above and beyond the level of the evidence presented out of conciliation. Your patience and consideration during this time will help, especially considering that CIAMM has just reported dealing with a serious injury in his immediate family.