<Add: post has been edited due to mediation with Soul and TINAE and may be further edited or deleted in time>
u/ExpressionOfTheSoul writes me: "If you're interested in discussing the things you brought up to me in the Emotional Healing forum, I suggest making a post about it on an appropriate forum and pinging me to it. Perhaps you could post it on one of the forums you mod or at the Conspiracies forum (If you want to post anything about me over there, go ahead). The mod decisions regarding the bans are final. There is a new post in the Expose religious extremism forum and a couple in the Bible Oddities forum you might be interested in discussing elsewhere." So it appears appropriate [to me] to collect a few facts about this account in one place for proper understanding.
[....] Since I don't understand the account's behavior, I'm just documenting it. (1) Soul appeared at Conspiracies last week and began posting [...] and I interacted and sought understanding. (2) Soul deleted all content and created three new forums (now four five six) and posted welcome messages with guidelines but without sidebar rules [he states that rules were publicly available via reporting function]. (3) I posted some questions in two of these, and Soul interacted with one of my comments [including his questioning responsively]. (4) Soul permabanned me from both forums, I copied my unanswered questions [with preface] to his third forum, and he permabanned me from that forum as well. (5) Soul wrote the message above. Clearly Soul is interested in maintaining a positive persona in speech and also in permitting a number of aggressive actions in tools and logs, and in focusing on his new forums while accepting being pinged in other forums.
The ban reasons were "No proselytzing efforts." (SeekersOfTheWay), "Moderator discretion." (ExposeReligiousExtremism), and "No proselytizing, persuasion, or agenda pushing." (EmotionalHealing). I infer that Soul is not too interested in working out a consistent moderation policy but seeks to organize discussion in specific but often [relatively] unpublished ways.
Though there might be much I'd want to say as to the several posts Soul has made, supportive and supplemental [including upvotes], for now I should probably stick to the questions that went unanswered (looking forward to Soul's answers), and try again in the fourth forum if I have any observations there. Those questions are:
I hope you don't mind my having a few questions about belief so that I know how to interpret the forum's purpose.
-
I see you're talking about theosis or divinization, as described in the Gospel of Thomas passim, and called in 1 Peter 1:4 being "of the divine, fellowshippers, by nature" (literal). That would be the meaning of "becoming Christ" (Anointed), because there are both the many applications of instantiations of Christ and the one central application of participation in Christ. It is rightly taught under the marriage metaphor by which one is the bride of Christ, thus the body of Christ, thus one with Christ, thus in various aspects indistinguishable from Christ: the bride is both a partial instantiation of the household that is named Christ, and a holistic participation in everything that Christ is and means. It doesn't appear Yeshua taught us to do anything different than he did (he taught us to do greater than he did), so it seems that in every way in which we are Christ he is also Christ. Q: Is it fair to uphold Yeshua as the model of the bridegroom with the follower being the model of the bride: that is, how could we have any better model for our lives than his life?
-
In this sense I would take your concern about "belief in" and "worship of" Christ. In my review of theology there is no belief in or worship of Christ other than what directs itself to belief in and worship of the Most High, and any sense in which it is applied to Christ the Body it is to be applied equally to Jesus and to his follower, in that bridal household metaphor. When Scripture speaks of "worshipping of" mortals it is to be worship of the image of God in the mortal, and the idea of "trusting" a mortal would similarly be limited to trusting God to work through the mortal; and Jesus honors those limitations in his teaching. Inferring from your other forum, you're rejecting absolutism, which would here involve trust and worship that is not directed to the Most High alone (even as in our actions we accord trust and reverence to humans freely). Q: Is that the kind of belief and worship that you're deprecating here?
-
You also speak of evolution (i.e. change), and in actual practice the most important evolution is that over a single life, because there is nothing for us at any moment that growth and improvement are abandoned; the open mind is always experiencing newness and volution. I've been investigating concepts of the "many lifetimes" ("reincarnation") and so I'd presume you're looking for more Abrahamic concepts like gilgul rather than more Hindu concepts like transmigration. It's complicated of course, so I have questions. Q: Are you looking at a multilife view that accounts for the constant evolution (change) in population totals, such that the billions alive today obviously did not all have continuous existence coming from past millennia? Most reincarnation views don't handle that very well, but I think gilgul does. I don't see the answer in Thomas or I would've brought that in.
-
Q: Are you familiar with details of Oversouls that are evolving as various unique lives manifest? An Oversoul is an archetypal personality that connects lives in such way that we can speak of both continuity and individuality without running into the contradictions that often arise on the subject. The Oversoul manifests in many individuals, can appear in multiples at once (i.e. can increase in its number of representatives on earth), and is undergoing a communal learning process via the individual variations of the archetype. The Oversoul exists first in God's conception and variously in its manifestations. I trust that explanation is what you're going after.
That should suffice for now. I hope this gets discussion off on the right foot because practicing this life with reference to the past and to the next life includes ensuring we have the core absolutes agreed. As I noted separately, this is not done by dogma but by evolving hypotheses that model the mind of the Most High with ever-increasing accuracy and sufficiency.
Add: Fifth permaban from ExposingExtremism for posting a perfectly responsive news article with title "Exposing Extremism 25 Dec 23: Alleged members of extremist group indicted in suspected SoCal New Years Eve bombing plot. A federal grand jury indicted four people on Tuesday in connection with a suspected terror plot to bomb targets in Los Angeles and Orange counties on New Year's Eve." Stated reason, "Mod discretion-user has exhibited mod griefing behavior across multiple forums. Ban final. No appeals." Apparently Soul believes it's entirely rational to create lots of fora about religiously motivated extremism and gatekeeping, then to gatekeep answers to questions about his core methodology, and then to have essentially no rule because "moderator discretion" can always be used for permaban whenever no other rule applies. This is creating welcomes one by one and demolishing them one by one [....] I sought to be sensitive, but it appears to me this is just the same user as one or more previous incarnations who doesn't desire to question his own presuppositions with the assistance of others. I still believe in enough sensitivity to give him space to remove [curtail] his own extremism in protecting his beliefs against rational improvement, but remind everyone that there are always the two choices, contradiction or truth, and one had better either admit one is on the side of contradiction and nihilism or on the side of truth and self-awareness.
The owner of c/Satanism here, who does not hesitate to call for censorship on others always cries out in pain when it's him getting censored.
Funny how that works.
This might help you understand what he does. He is the mod for c/Christianity and at the same time, c/Satanism, c/Porno, c/Yahweh. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. His job is to gatekeep and seize control when he doesn't have it. His partner is u/Thisisnotanexit who does the same, although without the wall of text.
I've dropped their masks several times, that's why they don't like me. 😇
My partner is not on this site. Swamp (edit: Ranger) is a friend and I've been trying to work on my friendship with you but it's not easy. Is there some current issue you would like to see resolved?
You've displayed no will to change your behavior when pointed out, so there's obviously no resolve.
Thank you for publishing the whole correspondence.
No; I also thank you for admitting your connection to the prior account, as I wasn't 100% sure of it and I treat new accounts as unconnected if they don't want to admit prior connection. Now that you've made that admission I need not treat it as unconnected.
It's true that because you didn't want to deal with me on this account I announced I was creating a new account, but then I let that account run on its own as disconnected because your prior account said something about wanting not to deal with people who were connected to religion. So I offered that account as someone not connected to religion. It was clear your prior account didn't want to communicate with me even free from any formal connection to religion. Now, of course, that's my impression of your former account, but the fact is that your choices to interact and not to interact are indeed mystifying and so I accept what you're willing to share, and I don't presume my judgments are correct.
Well, the first idea is that you're making up what you perceive me to be saying in the same way you accuse me of making up what I perceive you to be saying, so let's cancel those out and move past them. Darvo (checks lookup): Deny, attack, reverse victim/offender. Wonderful word, thanks. Not sure how such a charge could be denied as it seems self-fulfilling. That too probably should cancel, because the meta would be that two people with a conflict would normally minimize their own faults, maximize the other's, and claim innocence. So it doesn't help for us to go to extreme belligerence, because such a situation would seem to call for conflict resolution such as a third party offered us.
If you think I've got it out for you, you have the option of acting on that (i.e. refusing to interact, which is generally rightly done by informing the person rather than remaining ambiguous), or the option of acting against that (i.e. suppressing the thought and interacting anyway). I'm happy to help you work this out. You can either take unilateral steps to resolve your impression so that whatever I've got out for you won't affect you, or you can engage a bilateral process where we resolve it together. That's why I ask you questions. So for now (1) Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?
You've also drawn many conclusions about Swamp Rangers and my avocation here, and I've told your former account about this without believing I was understood. That's not so important; what I do say is that I'm committed to nothing but Jesus and that is my one purpose. If you don't like Jesus even though you want to follow The Way he proposed, if you want to be a Christ without him also being a Christ, you might have trouble. If you simply answer questions like the above, I think there's a good path forward for our discussion.
We might also be able to discuss your definition of proselytization. If pursuing truth at all costs is something you don't want to do, I believe in pointing out that that leads to nihilism and in reasoning with you to the degree you permit. But most people want truth and do not regard pursuit of truth as proselytization. So if you're able to make some statement about truth from your own perspective, I can resonate with that. My attempts to contribute were based on being responsive to your statements and strictures. If you don't see anything I do as helpful, it would be better to just agree not to interact.
At no time did you say you didn't want to deal with me specifically and ask me to cease to interact on an even basis. Because I'm an unconnected person except for my one connection to another person, I'm fully capable of being that from another account. If you open your forums to all comers, be prepared for all comers.
Since this question was asked of me, that implies you wanted an answer. I refer you again to state whether you do or do not want the interaction. Merry Christmas.