Along with reasonable proofs and links? Somewhere?
I dont see anywhere in the bible how the age of the planet is important. Someone can be a good Christian believing in either
I once thought that, then I realized that to stay silent meant I denied "By one man death entered the world." You can't have a miilion-year earth rising from no humanity to humanity without Darwinism. There were no millions or billions of years of death prior to the first man.
Hey Guy, just for my keeping score, your theory is that JG5 and CD5 are the same person because CD5 banned you? I missed the smoking gun. Thanks.
he didn't like some of the things I said.
You charged us with that, but all the u/Christianity mods responded to all your appeals and pointed out that we don't delete for content, only for behavior. The record shows that you were banned 21 then 30 days and lost 90 comments and 3 posts (13 by autofilter) due to racism, collectivism, profanity, obscenity, illogic, nonsupport, attack, namecalling, misrepresentation, inconsideration, and off-topic. Behaviors. Sounds like we gave you a lot of leeway to provide content rather than to permaban you.
You can continue the Scripture debate anytime. Your characterization of what I didn't like is, however, mistaken.
You're right that a moderator should encourage people to self-moderate when possible, which you may have noticed us implementing at Christianity. You're right that it's thankless and doesn't pay in earthly rewards. I'm glad we have some agreement that a community of conspiracists have a hard time building that delegated power without some agreement on morality.
I'm getting paid twice as much for this comment because twice nothing is nothing. I've always been a volunteer, and always said that.
Most organizations admit having a mission that distinguishes them from nonmembers. We're public about it. I figured it was necessary, as an anon, to tie myself to a public organization so people would not doubt where I stood. If I could figure out how to make money for commenting without jeopardizing my conscience by being at risk of committing to say things I didn't believe, that might be interesting, but people generally don't pay you to say whatever you think unless they know it'll serve some other purpose. So I just say whatever I think without being paid for it.
My record shows that I'm just here to talk conspiracies for fairness and transparency. Others speak for themselves.
However, with any group of anons there is a Lord of Flies risk of fragmentation, infiltration, secret collaboration, etc. That's why the Swamp Rangers are transparent and open, there is nothing to hide; it's the best defense against the risk, for anyone. It's natural that under anarchy we should have factions, rivalries, and suspicions. I believe the defense is public unity and commitment on broad goals, but it appears that the community prefers anarchy at this time (though it does not wish to say so, not having thought it through either way). These are natural conclusions I'd think anyone would come to thinking it through. So I've said my peace, but am happy to repeat myself.
Theistic evolutionists are Darwinists. There is no theory of millions of years from no humanity to humanity that is not Darwinist.
Just as he says, it's proper not to give a sitewide ban until confirmation. I was the first to report him with clear stated confirmation, and the comments you reported have already been moderated now. Just because you and u/Kaarous have your radar on early, if you can't point to sufficient clear stated confirmation enough to convince admin of sitewide ban, you have nothing to complain about. That's not sympathy, it's patient justice that doesn't prejudge. The admins are not about to ban a new account on prejudice, at risk of making an error that would be a much worse miscarriage of justice (even if Kaarous is, and I understand why given his different situation). With the new evidence we're just waiting on him to awaken from his turkey tryptophan hangover.
So, yes. Also, Hitler was a Darwinist and Son-of-God-denying cultist. Also, you will bow the knee before Jesus the Judahite (Jew), whether you will it or not, so you may as well do it now.
Give him a moment to wake up and confer with those who have the tools. Why else do you think I pinged him? You also shouldn't accuse a mod of a massive charge without evidence even if you mean he is a "sympathizer". You haven't presented a single charge against him that I should sympathize with over the position the community entrusts him with. If you want to start a conversation over the difference between charging leaders and charging members, you'll lose that too.
When I adopted the Unspoil strategy, by announcing it was risky I was accepting the probability that people would fail to understand and attempt to join together to narrate it as something it isn't. I prepared for that and dealt with it and continue to deal with it as part of the strategy. Nothing is failing and people are being pre-evangelized, even though you don't see it.
If you mean I responded to another member here differently when he started responding to me differently, that did happen, that's not part of a Swamp Rangers or Unspoil strategy but part of human relations. (I won't mention his name because he hasn't replied to me since I offered him a ceasefire.) But please review the conversation. Somebody suggests we restart roundtables and I naturally check on the current mod and announce there is none. That somebody considers and rejects himself for mod and starts talking about modding in general and I finally bite and say I could mod as well. That somebody then ravingly endorses me for mod and I demur and say it would require community support and I would go to Meta about it. Shortly afterward, that somebody discovers he doesn't like my strategy and disacknowledges the whole conversation, and so I back off from self-promotion while still seeking, like any contributor, to gage the community's interest.
If you think my making public a discussion about lack of mods, or my describing my ability to mod after another person described his, or my promoting myself after another person promoted me, are a strategy of some sort, you must be inferring that I had a goal in mind and failed to meet that goal. But I don't set longterm goals like that, I just take the step fitting to the moment. God reveals what's in the longterm, one step at a time. I get what I need. The Unspoil strategy describes itself as irrespective of whether I mod a community or not, modship is not part of it at all. I'm disappointed that you're joining in the voices that are shocked, shocked that I'm not what they wanted me to be, but always being what I am is fine for me.
I told you I'd move when necessary, and I reported him 5 minutes after he used the word "foid". It's in the hands of u/Paleo now. But the fact that I'm polite to, and give advice to, people who might not be sockpuppets doesn't mean I'm advancing the known ephebophile user. You may have made your judgment early due to a better feel for the account, but you didn't quantify it enough for Paleo; but his presence in Funny along with the quantifiers I stated seems to be enough now.
It's a standard triumphalist eschatology. Christians believe Jesus is Lord, there is no other eschatological option. He's the one who said you're for or against him. I'm his body but it's got nothing to do with me personally because he may use anyone else or he may wait until the forum collapses of itself; but it will be his one way or another.
Well, I'd tentatively agree with that. But to define sliding requires knowing what's being slid from. I've been affirming and objectifying the sidebar rules so I'm not sliding from that and I don't know what else I'd be accused of sliding from. I posted a couple posts from a Christian perspective (not obsessively like some); that is one of the perspectives here, and they're faring well. When I pointed out there were no mods, I apologized for my announcement tempting forum sliders out of the woodwork, but that would've happened anyway sooner or later, and we're accommodating the influx pretty well as unmoderated communities go. So if you think I'm sliding I appreciate your saying directly what to stop.
Esoteric societies take secret oaths, we have a commitment pledge that is framed as a public oath but is no different from the Terms of Service which you affirm by accessing this website. Esoteric societies don't have membership fees, we do because most all public voluntary orgs have membership fees to pay bills. The Swamp Rangers all have different methods; my own personal method included (not to promote but) to open up discussion about pornography in a healthy way, which has been helpful outreach to people. You seem to have a meaning for skittles that I don't, but all the subjects I open for discussion are evangelistic the same way. We're all anons, but I don't know how Swamp Rangers could be more public.
The Constitution under God is good government. I've told people about the Swamp Rangers when asked, there's no shilling; but I don't overpromote it because the platform prefers that I don't.
I respect what powermods did at Reddit, which is why when the landrush opened I announced all my communities would be self-determining. If nobody came to some, I was prepared for that, they remain viable. I hide nothing and I insult nobody. (If someone reacts to me violently, I might characterize that, but only on objective standards and for determination of how I will extricate myself from their reaction.)
I believe you're a jew.
I'm a covenantalist Reformed Christian who discovered the Hebrew roots by study of covenant.
there are personal reasons I wish they could be saved .... They'll never accept Jesus, because they have no idea who or what he is.
Then you would support Jewish evangelism that shows them unavoidably who and what Jesus is, by miracle, which is what Hebrew study drives me to strive for, including suffering with Jews as other missionaries suffer with the people they've adopted.
I said the concept of jew was invented later, then the word jew was coined.
When Ju was coined ca. 900 it meant the same as Judaeus. The fact that it went through various spellings before standardization, Iewe, Iew, Jew, etc. doesn't change that; the late date of the I/J distinction doesn't either. I don't know the first time it was spelled "Jew", but that's irrelevant because it meant the same as "Iewe" which is much older. The pronunciation difference also emerged much earlier, probably before the 1300s, than it was made a hard rule.
Since the words for Jew always referred to the same polity of people descended from the Judahites, there is no point at which a new concept for "Jew" was invented.
Most people in Judea (edomite jews) at the time of Jesus, to whom he had very harsh things to say, were not a part of any tribe of Israel, including the Tribe of Judah. They were a mixture of Babylonians, Cannanites, Hittites, but mainly Edomites.
That's what there is no evidence for. When the Jews were founded, a mixed multitude of Egyptians joined them and intermarried, and they were united not on birth alone but by birth or naturalization through circumcision. Over time the Canaanites and others sometimes intermarried but their culture was resisted consistently and only the Jewish circumcised culture was permitted; this is also true of Hyrcanus's conversion of the Edomites. There is no point at which the Judeans were regarded as two people, Israelite and non-Israelite; they were all Israelites by birth or naturalization and they kept Israelite culture. I pointed out that the Pharisees kept the same mishna as Jesus did, there were never two mishnas. Therefore Jesus and the Judeans were the same people, there was only one people; the other tribes of Israel had been absorbed into Judah/Judea. The fact that Israel was led by Aaronites (kohanim) and Levites shows that they were all Israelites.
The Bible gives Jesus's descent from Judah via his mother and his kingly rights to Judah via his adopted father, and explicitly denies that Jesus was from Levi (Heb. 7:11-14), so I don't know who's giving you the Levi angle because it's not the Bible.
So I've respectfully asked people, if they think there were two peoples that maintained such distinction that descendants of both can be distinguished today, when was there ever evidence of these two peoples staying apart all this time? The evidence doesn't show that. It shows that outsiders don't have the right to say who are Jews, and I add that this is so in the same way that everyone agrees that Jews don't have the right to say who are Americans.
Been doing that for 3 weeks at Conspiracies, pretty much, except for playing catchup with others who are making mention wrongly.
Without acknowledging your characterization, I wonder what you propose we do instead, Guy? If nothing, that's already being done, so there's no need to pile on.
Checkmate again. Why else did Mario tell Victor that "YOUR OFFICE" has done some very bad things in the past and we expect that your handling of it to promote gay blessings will be different? The DDF (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) is the Spanish Inquisition, which never departmentally ended.
I wasn't going to comment on your indirect comment, but you've now made it about me.
I've known TINAE for five years since we both met at c/Christianity where a large number of Patriots users congregated when the admins created it. I wouldn't be surprised if she had some understanding of or sympathy for my position after all that time. She's also been a valuable regular contributor here, having first posted at Conspiracies on 2020-12-18, before Swamp Rangers was even formed, which was obviously before we even had any media strategy or knowledge of Scored.
So what your comment really amounts to is that exposing yourself as a shill is easier than anyone thought. You certainly show you have no clue what the bullying meta rule was about, and someone said it was written about you in the first place IIRC.
Perhaps you shouldn't have spoken about considering yourself as mod (and turning yourself down) before anyone else in this convo did. Perhaps you shouldn't have given me an effusive endorsement as a humble and well-balanced mod. I wasn't going to keep bringing your contradictory words back up to you. But you keep bringing up my words that are not contradictory. Ceasefire is still available.
How can anyone prove to anyone else's satisfaction that they don't have friends upvoting and downvoting? If you can tell me what standard of proof you would use, we can work with that. For instance, if I accused you of having friends upvoting and downvoting what you like, how would you disprove it to me? Golden Rule.
I never said the org isn't used for good, I never said it was used to push me to mod, in fact I've never invoked it in connecting with modding this community. Your brain must be pretty twisted to be shown that we started this five years ago with a plan, a website, an org, an accountability, an oath, an image, a campaign, and to imply it was primarily for the purpose of downvoting you once you came along? Why would we go to all that trouble to announce ourselves if our primary goal is website voting? Voting campaigns never announce themselves unless they're soliciting people they're offering to pay for their votes. Thinking to all the meetings I've had with Rangers about all topics, did we ever say hey let's break some forum rules and risk defaming ourselves and losing reputation forever in case we're caught by site IP just so we can vote twice instead of once? No, that never came up, the closest we said is that individual Rangers could use social media in accord with terms (which obviously exclude such campaigns), but no Ranger (except my wife, who doesn't frequent Conspiracies) has ever told me of being on Scored. No publicly accountable org in the body of Christ does that. Use your AP psych!
Claiming namespaces doesn't make one "divided". If you wanted to debate philosphically the theology of unspoiling all things that would be different, but you're not doing that, you're overreacting to discovering more about the person you befriended (last year and this year), and you keep tying it to your controlling assertions over who is to be a mod here.
So let me know how you would defend against a charge that you have secret friends coordinating by DM and offline to control votes, and we can talk. Ceasefire is still available.
The organization isn't focused on capturing the forum, the Swamp Rangers exist to help Jesus Christ conquer the world. The forum will capitulate to Jesus in good time. You're either in favor of Jesus conquering the world, or you're getting conquered by Jesus, pretty simple.
I told you that to get proof you'd need to state terms of acceptable proof. However, it's pretty good prima facie evidence that the purposes of Swamp Rangers are consistent with those republished by Scott last year. We are after the Potomac Swamp, primarily. For you to twist that into concern about Conspiracies is pretty self-inserting. Ceasefire is still available.
No attempt to dodge, I told you in those places you hadn't exposed anything. Ceasefire terms are still available if you stop misrepresenting me.
It's something one could consider, and Skil just said much the same theory. But God created the world with animals and man in it very good, he didn't create a world designed with death for millions and billions of years. The attempt to reread these passages is only about 200 years old, coincident with atheistic evolution. Young earth has been the unified testimony of virtually all people at all times until a couple British declared war on it. If you'd like to put forward your positive evidence for billions of years, I posted a thread.