<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in working out a consistent moderation policy but seeks to organize discussion in specific but often [relatively] unpublished ways.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.
u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.
As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.
When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.
Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.
That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.
That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.
Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.
Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "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?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".
I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.
Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.
Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.
(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.
If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely
postcomment the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such apostcomment would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free topostcomment separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.I am willing to be corrected but it is my understanding in recently speaking with Eots that they do not trust my judgement so I am at a temporary loss of how to move forward with resolving this conflict between you two.
I've been pinged so I will seek to report neutrally, and in compliance with the letter and spirit of the draft agreement I offered (even though the draft doesn't apply, as remaining unagreed, and I am not necessarily bound by it).
ExpressionOfTheSoul has deleted his content, has removed others' content from his forums, and has hidden logs.
Meanwhile, new user SeekerOfTheWay has created the new forum c/TheNarrowWay with very similar structure. I am specifically forbidden from that community as a "bad faith user", but Soul has indicated that I'm free to comment about such activity in outside threads, and I've allowed myself to do so in this thread in relation to the possibility that the draft agreement might be concluded.
I presume that Seeker is indicating sufficient experience with Scored as to be able to find this comment, since he is likely to search my profile to see if I have any response to his ping.
My first observations are that (1) the rule of permabans at mod discretion is extremist and tyrannical and indicates that one's purposes are not successfully achieved in a broad forum where people speak freely, which puts one's purposes in a poor light; (2) the position that Jesus did not come to promote belief in or worship of Christ but to teach people to become Christ appears to be a dogmatic, extreme "opinion" and "manmade doctrine", especially when sincere questions exploring the nuances of that declaration are flatly refused; (3) as I stated before, I absolutely affirm the statement "The journey of the disciple of Yeshua is one of absolute dedication to TheWay", while pointing out that this absolute dedication is contrary to the idea that others' views can be rejected subjectively instead of tested against the absoluteness of dedication to The Way.
So I continue to offer my sincere question to both Soul and Seeker: Is it objectively true (without dependence on subjective framing) that no statements are objectively true, or is it objectively true that one or more statements are in fact objectively true?
I reserve such rights as (1) to comment at a distance in response to contributions that involve me, (2) to interact with any comments in forums where both the commenter and myself are contributors with equal rights, (3) to invite others to interact with other accounts as fitting, and (4) to continue in my prayers for account holders here that they grow in absolute dedication to The Way.
Thanks for the update.
And now I've been permabanned from TheNarrowWay for "Mod discretion ". And the logs are not public. Well, I hope he liked my one upvote as I can't give him any more there.
And now I've been permabanned from BewareTheirTactics for "Mod Discretion" (a new forum that I didn't know about until then). And the logs are not public.
SeekerOfTheWay there writes about me, "I'm sorry. There's a specific user (Swamp) that's been unhealthily fixated on me lately, and I'm trying to safeguard and give myself the ability to keep him at bay and head off any drama or grief he tries to give me."
This is really the height of rent-free earned media and I'm enjoying every minute. Oddly enough, via the Streisand Effect, he is creating more drama than if he had agreed to an interaction ban and stopped talking about me; he even has his first contributor expressing the thought that he, Seeker, would ban the asker for asking about inclusions. Some people are at places where they cannot be told.
That's why I framed the last two paragraphs in terms that apply even if he chooses to cease interacting. At a minimum I trust you to rule formally what you'd do as a mod disciplining me, and I trust you to reoffer mediation if he should complain that I've broken some term that he thinks we've agreed to.
quoting SwampRangers warning
Me- I don't think there is discipline to be had in this instance on either party. I am willing to reoffer mediation.
This all seems to me like 2 parties in disagreement and mod powers are used for rule breaking, which has not be done in this forum, to my knowledge. If I've missed some infraction, I trust you and u/ExpressionOfTheSoul to let me know and I can look closer.
His next.
I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.
I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.
Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.
I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.
Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.
Add: I have the draft ready to post so I will await further instructions from either of you. Since he has now seen this comment he should be ready to act too, or perhaps ready not to act. He raises the quibble that, since everything I do is geared toward the one goal of helping truth go forward in the world, therefore everything I do can be regarded as proselytizing (that being the logical conclusion of his words). I've seen that charge before, which is why I try to preclude it by (1) insisting on definition, (2) applying it equally (such as to his "attempting to convert" you or me "from one" "opinion to another"), and (3) defining what kinds of human interactions are indeed acceptable as mutual pursuit of truth. His continuing to have difficulty to see the equivalence is what's holding him back. IMHO. But I'm confident we'll get to discuss it again sometime. For now the draft awaits.
I have posted the draft agreement, by which I still reserve the right to continue directly related discussion in this thread up until the draft is clearly agreed by Soul in its entirety as well. Will watch your accounts to see if any further action is needed. I note Soul's latest comment but have no reply to it.
He's now written:
I'd appreciate your suggesting to him one more time that he can have everything he asked for if he consents to the draft agreement at CommunitiesConflict. If he proceeds with rescission instead, then (not a threat but a discussion of likelihood) it is likely that I will consider myself free to repeat my core questions about truth to him as his contributions permit, that he is likely to be immediately confronted by the illogic of proposing a solution and having it accepted in essence and then not following through with the solution, and that we will continue to have direct interactive difficulty with each other's characterizations of matters.
Either outcome (voluntary interaction ban or two-way free-range relationship) is acceptable to me.
Add: He also indicates freedom to ping me, in accord with his new proposal. I'd still like his statement confirmed all the same.