You're behind closed doors now, the GAW mods agreed with u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, and deleted these two threads as off-topic for this forum. Only people who have the link can see it, such as those who visit your user profile.
I honestly thought you were a strong upholder of Matthew 18:15 ff.: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Have you obeyed this command, or do you think it doesn't apply?
I will take all the time I have to seek God (including within my heart) for the answers here. I count you as a brother and your use of the Lord's name is painful to me. If he told me that one or both of us should step down, I'd submit.
But if you're going to prosecute charges they need to be cognizable. You used "false witness". In context I found one comment from CIAMM that applies by containing the word "ridiculous". Would you like him to edit that? That could've been done privately as Jesus said rather than starting three attack threads.
This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
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.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
And you think you get free reign to maliciously misrepresent half the Christians on the planet, on my watch?<
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
CIAMM deleted it because it was an escalatory personal attack. It was essentially the same content as the second thread you saw (this comment is on the third thread). He described our behavior as false witness; then he said we call his ideas false in an abuse of our power, implying we have a double standard. He called us mashers running our mouths and implied we were directed by Catholics, of which there is public evidence to the contrary, as I'm submitted to First Century Bible Church.
Our considerations were that we could delete it (for other reasons than the censorship he accuses us: namely for the dramatic increase of the attacking language, the misrepresentation, and the target being the mod board rather than a contributor); or we could retain it (and invite the similarly minded to pile on, causing more disruption to the flock). Between him and me, CIAMM made the decision to delete and ban, and we continued to discuss and observe the situation. When it became clear that his ban note could be misconstrued and would become public, we admitted our mistake and have now moved the discussion to answering his concerns. These are tricky decisions, we don't always get them perfect. Thank you for your concern and understanding.
Attack = Telling the truth. When I put up a "public" post, I am opening myself up for comments against my position. I am not afraid of airing this out. Not at all. 24 upvotes, comments that agree with me, comments of people trying to tiptoe all around the subject matter. Perfect thing to discuss among the body of Christ, is it not? The harlot church wants to shut the lights off. Climb any mountain, cross any border to silence dissent, for real.
Andy, most people know the difference between facts backed up by logic and subjective opinion backed up by speculation. Just before you made the post, you called CIAMM "a person who abuses their power against even mild criticism of their own religion". While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post. In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence. You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
I already answered the charges in your deleted post. Do subjective statements comparing us to Democrats and worse count as "telling the truth"? (In the first months of c/Christianity, you might've gotten deleted for mentioning Democrats; ask u/Perun.) No. But my answering your concern here isn't advancing the debate much better than my answer to your deleted post, despite your insistence upon airing and discussion. Are you asking us to move the venue to the forum you promised not to return to? What good do those 24 anons do you that you keep citing them?
I'm concerned that you may be evidencing the adrenaline theory more than I suspected. You used to work together with us, share the load, agree to disagree on eschatology, dish it out and take it, roll with all comers. Since the fallout, which apparently had something to do with CIAMM's immense appreciation for your first Irenaeus link, I haven't been able to parse the depth behind what you're saying.
In the name of Jesus, I command the spirit of confusion to depart from this conversation and from the presence of the three of us gathered in his name.
While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post.
This is not true. I took my complaint to the body of Christ, in the form of a post, subject to approval or disapproval of all. It was wiped immediately. That was your "reply."
In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence.
Christianity.win Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules
I specified in great detail. This was not "a remembered experience." It was in direct response to your "reply," which was deletion.
You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
Remember when I called myself the "Happy Anathema?" Christ would never label me an anathema, do you believe He uses such language? I remember Him specifically cautioning against shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven. I told the truth. This is what authority does, unless it is checked.
You're behind closed doors now, the GAW mods agreed with u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, and deleted these two threads as off-topic for this forum. Only people who have the link can see it, such as those who visit your user profile.
I honestly thought you were a strong upholder of Matthew 18:15 ff.: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Have you obeyed this command, or do you think it doesn't apply?
I will take all the time I have to seek God (including within my heart) for the answers here. I count you as a brother and your use of the Lord's name is painful to me. If he told me that one or both of us should step down, I'd submit.
But if you're going to prosecute charges they need to be cognizable. You used "false witness". In context I found one comment from CIAMM that applies by containing the word "ridiculous". Would you like him to edit that? That could've been done privately as Jesus said rather than starting three attack threads.
This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
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.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
Wait - re "rather than starting three attack threads" - did Andy really start THREE ?
Yes, one attack thread on our forum (immediately deleted) and then two here.
Why? did you Delete his 1st. thread in "christianity"
CIAMM deleted it because it was an escalatory personal attack. It was essentially the same content as the second thread you saw (this comment is on the third thread). He described our behavior as false witness; then he said we call his ideas false in an abuse of our power, implying we have a double standard. He called us mashers running our mouths and implied we were directed by Catholics, of which there is public evidence to the contrary, as I'm submitted to First Century Bible Church.
Our considerations were that we could delete it (for other reasons than the censorship he accuses us: namely for the dramatic increase of the attacking language, the misrepresentation, and the target being the mod board rather than a contributor); or we could retain it (and invite the similarly minded to pile on, causing more disruption to the flock). Between him and me, CIAMM made the decision to delete and ban, and we continued to discuss and observe the situation. When it became clear that his ban note could be misconstrued and would become public, we admitted our mistake and have now moved the discussion to answering his concerns. These are tricky decisions, we don't always get them perfect. Thank you for your concern and understanding.
Attack = Telling the truth. When I put up a "public" post, I am opening myself up for comments against my position. I am not afraid of airing this out. Not at all. 24 upvotes, comments that agree with me, comments of people trying to tiptoe all around the subject matter. Perfect thing to discuss among the body of Christ, is it not? The harlot church wants to shut the lights off. Climb any mountain, cross any border to silence dissent, for real.
Andy, most people know the difference between facts backed up by logic and subjective opinion backed up by speculation. Just before you made the post, you called CIAMM "a person who abuses their power against even mild criticism of their own religion". While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post. In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence. You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
I already answered the charges in your deleted post. Do subjective statements comparing us to Democrats and worse count as "telling the truth"? (In the first months of c/Christianity, you might've gotten deleted for mentioning Democrats; ask u/Perun.) No. But my answering your concern here isn't advancing the debate much better than my answer to your deleted post, despite your insistence upon airing and discussion. Are you asking us to move the venue to the forum you promised not to return to? What good do those 24 anons do you that you keep citing them?
I'm concerned that you may be evidencing the adrenaline theory more than I suspected. You used to work together with us, share the load, agree to disagree on eschatology, dish it out and take it, roll with all comers. Since the fallout, which apparently had something to do with CIAMM's immense appreciation for your first Irenaeus link, I haven't been able to parse the depth behind what you're saying.
In the name of Jesus, I command the spirit of confusion to depart from this conversation and from the presence of the three of us gathered in his name.
While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post.
This is not true. I took my complaint to the body of Christ, in the form of a post, subject to approval or disapproval of all. It was wiped immediately. That was your "reply."
In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence.
Christianity.win Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules
I specified in great detail. This was not "a remembered experience." It was in direct response to your "reply," which was deletion.
You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
Remember when I called myself the "Happy Anathema?" Christ would never label me an anathema, do you believe He uses such language? I remember Him specifically cautioning against shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven. I told the truth. This is what authority does, unless it is checked.
Have I checked the authority?