Thank you for linking the statement by u/CuomoisaMassMurderer. I wasn't lying, or mistaken, I was referring to a different incident; it wasn't in a "House of God" because ChristianAnarchism doesn't purport to be a house of any kind, but if you want to say he said it in a Christian-focused forum that wouldn't exaggerate. Also he's not anyone's "priest" so you're exaggerating again.
I note you didn't link your provocation, which is a bit too strong for me to quote directly. I could see how the fact that you accused him of what could be a capital offense could be taken as a physical threat too, and if you don't see that then I could see how you'd think I'm equivocating again.
But either way he demonstrated that you don't talk like that on the internet and then get the right to whine about the next reply as if one was objectively more escalatory than the other. When both people escalate, both are at fault. I'm pretty sure I said so at the time, but I could be wrong. I didn't say the whole comment was Biblically sound theology, I said it tied to theology despite its overreach. What I said earlier in this thread wasn't about that comment.
Now, given all that, without equivocating, is it wrong for a moderator of a Christian forum, one that seeks to be a home for a cell of the body of Christ, to speak that quote in a different forum? Yes. That would be a comment that there'd be no objection to autofiltering if someone chose.
What do you want to do about everybody who escalates such conversations into vile topics like this comment, including yourself and myself? If you want him to apologize, do you apologize? If you want him to remove his comment, do you remove yours? I've always appreciated your doggedness, but in this case it blinds you to your own behavior; you might argue moral equivalence doesn't apply because he hurt you and you hurt only him, but I think you can see through that one.
Because I'm not very absolutist and I find nuances to most things. In context, I remember judging that the words he actually used had theological import known to most people who hang out in churches.
If you don't save links there's not that much we can do. I did an ordinary search for the offense but couldn't find the specific comment. Here is one where we discussed it to give you the specific timeframe. My immediate guess is that it occurred in a neutral forum and he edited or deleted it on his own. If so, that would mean that he decided simply that it was inappropriate, to which I'd agree. But if I'm to judge a comment as the first-responder moderator, I've been instructed by admin to review everything with a hope to retain it when possible. That's why I can't say that that phrase should be automatically removed every time it appears, as if by an automod.
More to the point, he's modified the way he speaks, and your bringing up the past doesn't account for that. Ordinarily we ask people to make it right (change the record), apologize, and not do it again, and that's what it appears has happened. My apology also indicates willingness to go with you where things need to go. So let me know what we can do.
Yes, if it's a threat of violence, it's condemned.
If it's an allusion to violence, that's not often a threat and it's also much more subjective to judge. There was a recent exchange in the hypothetical voice that we debated but eventually agreed was removable. We're not here to remove all allusions to violence that people might take personally, or people might start saying they feel threatened when we speak of the deservingness of this or that Mideastern people-group.
If it's possibly readable as theology, that often gets a pass too because it's more charitable to read it as theological than as actually intentionally violent.
We do acknowledge imperfection in our actions. What I recall being asked 4 years ago was specific adjustments, and I went over the decisions with you and we made adjustments.
A covenant to work together is not a golem, it's a joint agreement to work as a body. All joint agreements in the world work like that.
So those seem to me to be fair definitions, without equivocation. If you don't think so, please feel free to drill down more specifically.
I love the Reina Valera Antigua ca. 1602, it even follows the same translation rules that Andy's other English translations use, but it's not in English and it's not the summum bonum or the res ipsa.
It's not adamant if it's contradictory and he doesn't realize it's contradictory. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Well, dude, then I apologize for my part in our failed communications. Failed comms are a two-way street of course. I've also apologized when you've disliked mod choices and we've amended them.
I'm not stuck, I believe both models, that's why I have an alt so that I don't look schizo. Both flatties and globies are bad at math though.
You can criticize the Roman church as too protective. My church is Hus and Waldo and Tyndale and Wycliffe and Reina and Valera, and Luther the raving papist whose German Bible was revolutionary. But it doesn't matter, does it, as long as I affirm the KJV?
Thank you for accepting and adding to my exorcism. I trust then that we can dispense with exaggerated characterizations.
That He has given us His word in our own language. I can't think of a reason why He would not. You are full of reasons why He would not.
I've never said He wouldn't or didn't give us His Word in our own language. I've accepted the KJV 1769 as having a special "inspiration" unlike any other version. I do occasionally think about all my brothers and sisters for thousands of years who never knew Early Modern English, as to whether God gave them His Word in their own language, but since you generally have discounted them it shouldn't be a concern. Besides, sooner or later English speakers will be a majority of all believers who have ever lived, if this keeps up, won't they?
My alt is a flat earther. That is, I'm of two minds about it, depending on the math today. The forum is for all views and all testing and does not predispose anyone to any issue. No fighting intended fren.
Why don't you lay out all your evidence at c/FlatEarth, which allows all legal moral speech? I certainly hope the present disclosure kick will allow some Antarctica, moon, and Mars digging.
Ironically, the only way we can ascertain truth and discern delusions is by following the principles best taught by the historical record of Jesus. You might be interested in my thoughts at the Atheist forum on this.
Whence do you ascertain truth and discern delusion other than by a standard of right and wrong external to yourself, popularly called "God", common to and transcendent above all men, which is just what we hear Jesus said?
Obviously the truth is that trillion-dollar infrastructure is being moved with the apparent consent of the people, masking the framework under which a more bestial system will emerge than ever before, but Jesus's words also have the plans to defeat even that, and I find them trustworthy enough to hold his line and trust his plan.
So what is your solution that doesn't involve the truths of Jesus? Or just dooming?
Would you like to kill me now?
See what I mean about your rhetoric Andy?
As soon as you connect a circuit showing there's a demon here by some simple standard, logical or spiritual, I'll fight the demon. Of course I can also fight proactively. There are certain exorcisms I will do at the drop of a hat:
Father, Lord, Yahweh, we come to you with the discernment that there must be something demonic in our conversation because it's gone on so long without resolution. Andy, u/SovereignSon, and I come to you to ask that the demonic influence cease, and we all agree on this point even though we have different ways of saying it. So by the authority you've given me as a follower of Christ, I call on you to remove from us every spirit that opposes you, every attitude that is antichrist. Your ministering angels take charge as you order, command, and ordain, and they have authority to remove demons from our midst and are doing so right now. Just as we have seen in the outer world, in the smaller areas like the trillions of dollars, when the enemy is named he flees and he ceases his operations; so also in the much weightier matters of the spirit, our naming the enemy causes him to flee seven ways from Sunday. And so, Father God, I use that authority to exorcise these demons now, in Jesus's name, amen.
And now, you evil spirits of antichrist, of enmity, of rebellion, of witchcraft, of falsehood, of lying, of cheating, of religiosity, of heresy, of sect, of divisiveness, of faction, of casuistry, of all Babylonian and all satanic systems, you are dispelled from us, your assignments are broken, your power is spent, your words are impotent, and your network is destroyed. Depart from me, from Andy, from Son, and from the followers of Jesus in these virtual or real spaces, now, and do not return. You have no power, you have no authority, and you are leaving now, by the power of Jesus's name.
Most people just find the one contrib that is problematic and hit the one button under it that handles the matter quietly. Appeals often come via modmail and we do a fuller review of the first responder action.
Your charge, that u/CuomoisaMassMurderer told u/Andy_Man45 that he was going to slit Andy's throat, is not "apparent". You may be referring to an exchange years ago. CIAMM has on occasion said that certain kinds of talk have gotten people killed, suggesting that he's seen death and wants to warn people indirectly. Looking at Andy's past week of rhetoric at Christianity I don't see much different, except that the hypothetical warnings are spiritual instead of physical. There's a boundary line, but hypotheticals generally don't cross it. If you saw something you didn't like, you should be able to report it instead of pouring out your heart to Conspiracies about it.
Oh, look at that, your second-to-last post at Christianity was stickied for the usual period, so there doesn't seem to be a selection bias there. Your most recent one (copy-paste year-old news) didn't quite make the cut. Stickies are partly related to the number of people who post from a certain viewpoint, but all Christian viewpoints, and all civil non-Christian viewpoints (though usually not stickied), are welcome. Did you want to start giving the needed context you see for the posts or stickies you see?
Yeah, I'm a gamer, but I also am selective about it. Learning truth with others is the greatest game, but sometime I can show you around my gaming rigs too. LinkedIn has some new brain games that my times would beat you consistently at, do you want to deanonymize there?
The admins stay active and have always expressed approval or disapproval as they see fit. If there was anything about the forum they didn't like then it would change rapidly.
Hi Graph. (Sigh.) I love how you stretch events so far that they're virtually unrecognizable even though you can still make out where the tar baby's eyes used to be after you're done with it.
Yes, the historical Ripper record indicates the witnesses used their religion as a reason for not testifying. It's just the facts of their identification and stated motivation. I made no comment about their evaluation skills.
No, none of the c/Christianity mods (which is really still the admins' forum) have banned people for stating historical facts and self-identifications. Do you want me to pull your record and remind you again the reasons you got bans of various lengths? Do you want me to see how many Unz columns of yours we retained in their entirety because they are documented media opinions that don't need significant context added? (Perhaps you want to reinvoke a discussion about matters with one particular mod?)
No, nobody's gotten banned for quoting the Talmud. I do push back when people misquote and misrepresent the Talmud because that shouldn't be done against any religious book; I also push back against misrepresentation of the Quran, but I haven't had occasion to do so as often. The book does not tell them to regard Jesus Christ as a sorcerer, it says that one rabbi 300 years later did so, but the majority opinion was not about Jesus's crime but about whether he had received the full benefit of human law. It's widely believed he didn't, but only the Sanhedrin can reverse the Sanhedrin. If you actually want to quote "Talmud out of context" and say "He was an inciter", you'd be implying it's fine to quote "Bible out of context" when it says "There is no God".
Should the forum make any particular change, like repairing a stickiness mistake, reviewing any discipline decision, or taking some discipline step that has been overlooked?
I don't know what the toes are about. I also never could get a good feel for pinball but have been enjoying your posts. 80s arcade I got a feel for.
Kosminski was identified as a prime suspect for the Ripper killings, by Sir Robert Anderson of Scotland Yard (one of the models for Sherlock Holmes), but Anderson was unable to get any witnesses to testify against him because all possible witnesses were Jewish and refused. When Kosminski was unrelatedly committed to a mental asylum, the killings stopped.
With your interest in censorship, you might inquire with the mods as to why I was nuked at c/Parasite when I have a keen interest in the research. Apparently I said the wrong thing. Inquiry might reveal how various topics are handled at Scored and the direction that topical presentation could or should take.
I see no problems right now. There's been a glitch that only appears here, that goes something like some posts appearing at conspiracies.win/new that don't appear on scored.co/c/conspiracies/new at the same time. It's probably just different servers getting updated at different times; some views come from different places. If it persists go to c/Meta.
Oh, Jesus's followers are being beheaded en masse now. 30 Christians were beheaded last month by Islamic State in Central Africa (other decapitations are listed in that link too). Note, it has nothing to do with Noahide Laws.
I will tell you the word I got today, which I'm not trumpeting because I want to see how it develops. The real endgame is the coordination of "elected representatives" of all nations agreeing on Christianity being a capital offense (even though the stream of Christianity is what defines capital offense in the first place). It doesn't matter how this happens for each contributor: whether by Jews declaring trinitarianism idolatry, or by nominal Christians declaring fundamentalism unloving, or by Muslims declaring Nazarenes belligerent, or by unbelievers declaring theists unwoke. The common denominator is the abuse of human judgment over capital punishment to attack a class of people who speak against that abuse. What we're seeing with Trump is a brilliant attempt to forestall this by surrounding these enemies and beating them in their own ability to use God-created powers like networking and logistics, such as by creating new partnerships and ventures and blessings. We know that every good creation in this earth gets corrupted in time, which means the new things we see this year are someday destined for corruption too, but for now they will be effective in routing enemies. God has planned that there's a final time when the enemy is permitted to have just enough sway to declare the ultimate war against God, and that's the time when God will vindicate himself by intervening personally, but not until. Therefore in every skirmish we are called to outmaneuver and outperform the enemy and to be diligent to order our lives and organize better than they do, so that whether it's an interim fight or the final one we are doing everything possible to spread truth and love. If it's not the last we will succeed by earthly means, and if it is the last we will succeed by supernatural means. So the final scheme does involve deceiving the Jews about Noahide Law just as it involves deceiving everyone else; but every deceit is tailored to its people so that the whole of the imperial clothes are hanging together by a thread. Every other war is just a dress rehearsal, practice for this final conflict.
Oh, there are definitely Rothschild powers, Freemasons, Jesuits, political Zionists, and depths of satan ("synagogue" is not the best term Biblically), but I've found that my total allegiance to Jesus, maintained by him and not just by myself, is more than competent to defeat all of them. That's why I range the swamp, so as to establish dominion over it and keep it protected from such creatures.
It's not my fault that your source can't take one minute to find the current Jewish Encyclopedia link under "Laws, Noachian".
The concept that Noah had laws goes back to, well, Noah: namely, all cultures agree that there are basic moral laws such as "no murder" that all seem to have a common moral source. Therefore (as I said) all sons of Noah have equal rights to this human morality. For instance, Christians affirm the teachings of Noah in Gen. 6-9 and the general application of such laws to all humanity in Acts 15.
The Talmudic implementation recognizes that there are other implementations (Gentile courts) and it interacts with those. Since the Talmud is a book of law for one people and not for others (just like any national constitution), it doesn't concern itself significantly with the law of other peoples, but it does comment on it. It affirms that Gentiles have the right to exercise capital punishment ("by man shall his blood be shed"), which is what OP is concerned about. It affirms that this is to be judged by the Gentiles and not by the Jews.
The idea that certain Jews use the concept of moral law under a name like "Noahide Laws" to control Gentile courts has no more basis than any other group wanting to contribute to the laws of others. Christianity, Islam, and various powerful nations seek to have influence over the laws of others even while they all nominally agree that each people should decide for itself. Now, it's a very interesting question, what degree one people should influence the laws of others, especially combined with the power to do this secretly; and it's certainly true that there are many Jewish (and other) attempts to manipulate laws of other peoples. This OP diverts from this recognized framework into the distracting issue that, surprise, the Rabbinical Jews discovered, like the Roman Empire, that they must be sensitive to the laws of other nations they do not control. If there were some discussion of particulars of Named Jews (AIPAC) influencing foreign government, that would be much more to the point, but it wouldn't have anything to do with any nation's acknowledgment that all of us as sons of Noah are responsible for setting human laws.
Everyone is descended from Noah. The principle is that as Noahides humanity is capable of making its own laws based on Noah's practice, and that includes judgment of death penalties. There's nothing in the Noahide laws about one people overseeing the death penalty of another people; the death penalty can only be administered by an "established court of justice" created by the people at large from among themselves.
The perversion of this principle should indeed be fought, such as by rejecting the rule of one who is not a natural-born citizen; but that's not connected to the general implementation of Noahide law as such in any place.
Correct, the third line is a lunar eclipse. The constellations are the track of the planetary alignment (of today IIRC). I'll keep an eye out for this kind of X. There's also a cherub, a winged American shield, and an atom that are generic. The background looks like Polar Express, Tomorrowland, and The Wizard of Oz.
False, recycled telephone-game quotes, many not from the Talmud. I've compiled the accurate quotes on many of these. The detailed path of how these crazy compilations are created, starting in the 19th century but with echoes back to Jewish convert to Catholicism Nicholas Donin in the 13th, is enough to form its own conspiracy.
I didn't say Biblically sound, I said it ties to a common sound theology, but I didn't remember the context of this one, I admit. Doesn't matter.
Yes, u/CuomoisaMassMurderer should follow a higher standard than others, as a representative of a Christian forum. Now, would you like to define that standard? Do you think that some action should be taken? And if so then why wouldn't you seek to raise yourself to the same standard proactively, even though you're not a mod, since your provocation to him was equally escalatory? Or do you think that hierarchies exist so that the common man can sin freely but complain about the same sins seen in those who are delegated community powers? If it's attack, it should be punished the same for everyone; if there's a secondary sin of aggravation due to being a mod, that punishment should be added to the punishment that's the same for everyone. But Anarchism is the Wild West so there is no punishment except voluntarily, and you're not initiating the volunteering. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to append the comment with my statements of disapproval that I placed elsewhere at the time? That's about the limit of my abilities. Or do you think there should be a community question of some kind? That method usually doesn't work in communities I've experienced, because it's also obvious to not a few people that your animus is rather shortsighted.
You bring in a parallel to rape and abuse (violent talk, that), but the fact is that if it weren't about Christianity there'd be no moral ground at all for you to complain about a mod riffing you on a different forum. You certainly don't act like you believe that your provocations are equivalent to rape or abuse. You seem only to fight the person who has a standard, by pretending you understand his standard but neither applying it to yourself first nor inquiring of him how he interprets his own standard. That's pretty opportunist and you haven't let it go.
I can apologize and explain as long as God permits. But the only way to solve the problem you experience is for you to agree to what solution you want. Define the remedy.