j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 22, 2017 2:08:29 GMT
This is exactly why I spoke against 'moderators' in the first place (false 'moderation') and against this crap that's already happening here. I made a post about it some time back, and some users back then immediately started to suggest I was a "troll", whatever the hell it means, because I don't take garbage from anybody. Now I post on this thread here and all of a sudden I'm labeled a bunch of things in a violent way. The same has happened to others. These 'moderators' saw the verbal violence taking place and what did they do about it in their role of 'moderators'? Push against me as well, of course. How the hell is this even as a conversation? Maybe those users weren't banned, but they did see the door out, that's for sure, and it happened for a reason. I suggest you read my post about a way to keep our data safe. It also provides for a true moderator-LESS environment where each user can control what he sees. Cheers. Again, the mods are not here to police political debates. As far as I know, you and other like-minded users have not been censored or banned in any way. The fact that I'm a mod and have opinions different from yours doesn't warrant an excuse to claim unfairness. The only thing that the mods and admin has done is remove posts that directly violate Proboard's Terms of Service. And if several users report the same person for their posts that actually do violate our ToS, then they will be spoken to first before anything else. We're not in the business to ban people that we don't agree with. That does not make a healthy discussion board. If you can't handle with people disagreeing with your views en masse, then you, like the other two users mentioned, can leave by your own choice. Now in regards to myself -- I am here to voice my opinions and have discussions about a variety of topics, just like all of you. I'm not here to reprimand, punish, or censor any of you. Unfortunately that's not how some folk around here have seen it.What you probably don't see is that I'm on your side here. I did speak against 'moderation', the false kind (observe the " ' "). But I stand by the work that you, admin and others do to keep the boards active and clean. I think it's very hard and very good work. And about this 'homosexuality' business, don't take it too hard. Remember, it's conversations here, and we all have our opinions and our points of view. If it's just one kind of people posting here, what kind of conversation would there be? I have nothing against you as a person. I just must reject the homosexual activity like probably you must reject my rejection, maybe because it (the activity) is a part of what you do.
|
|
Blue
Junior Member
@bluejay
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 372
|
Post by Blue on Feb 22, 2017 2:15:15 GMT
Again, the mods are not here to police political debates. As far as I know, you and other like-minded users have not been censored or banned in any way. The fact that I'm a mod and have opinions different from yours doesn't warrant an excuse to claim unfairness. The only thing that the mods and admin has done is remove posts that directly violate Proboard's Terms of Service. And if several users report the same person for their posts that actually do violate our ToS, then they will be spoken to first before anything else. We're not in the business to ban people that we don't agree with. That does not make a healthy discussion board. If you can't handle with people disagreeing with your views en masse, then you, like the other two users mentioned, can leave by your own choice. Now in regards to myself -- I am here to voice my opinions and have discussions about a variety of topics, just like all of you. I'm not here to reprimand, punish, or censor any of you. Unfortunately that's not how some folk around here have seen it.What you probably don't see is that I'm on your side here. I did speak against 'moderation', the false kind (observe the " ' "). But I stand by the work that you, admin and others do to keep the boards active and clean. I think it's very hard and very good work. And about this 'homosexuality' business, don't take it too hard. Remember, it's conversations here, and we all have our opinions and our points of view. If it's just one kind of people posting here, what kind of conversation would there be? I have nothing against you as a person. I just must reject the homosexual activity like probably you must reject my rejection, maybe because it (the activity) is a part of what you do. What happens in this thread stays in this thread. I don't hold grudges and will not carry over feelings from this thread to a different one. Like with awhina I was able to talk with her on other threads with no hostility. I hope we can all continue that atmosphere, because at the end of the day, we are all here to enjoy the boards.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 22, 2017 2:19:56 GMT
What you wrote doesn't even make sense (to favor you). Try again. Favor me? Are you under the impression of that I am a christian? Sorry to disappoint you, i'm not. Oh brother. Okay help me here, what is "talking down to" exactly? I haven't claimed to be. Actually it wouldn't. I haven't claimed any titles either way. I have a friend who owns a parrot and it says really cool things. I don't think it's a christian either. And by the way, there's no such thing as a woman deacon in 'Christianity the Real thing'. That much I know. How old are you anyway? Lighten up.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 22, 2017 2:26:48 GMT
Unfortunately that's not how some folk around here have seen it.What you probably don't see is that I'm on your side here. I did speak against 'moderation', the false kind (observe the " ' "). But I stand by the work that you, admin and others do to keep the boards active and clean. I think it's very hard and very good work. And about this 'homosexuality' business, don't take it too hard. Remember, it's conversations here, and we all have our opinions and our points of view. If it's just one kind of people posting here, what kind of conversation would there be? I have nothing against you as a person. I just must reject the homosexual activity like probably you must reject my rejection, maybe because it (the activity) is a part of what you do. What happens in this thread stays in this thread. I don't hold grudges and will not carry over feelings from this thread to a different one. Like with awhina I was able to talk with her on other threads with no hostility. I hope we can all continue that atmosphere, because at the end of the day, we are all here to enjoy the boards. ... and let's not forget we're all on a boat here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 2:39:27 GMT
Ada telling lies. It's just like old times! "ADA" IS NOT HERE, CLOWN! ! That's what you said last time. Then in the end you said you were a different person because you had started using a different nick. The thing is, you can't seem to change your posting style. The exact same opinions, always with the exact same inability to admit that you're wrong on anything, no matter how minor. You're Ada as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 22, 2017 2:42:29 GMT
"ADA" IS NOT HERE, CLOWN! ! That's what you said last time. Then in the end you said you were a different person because you had started using a different nick. The thing is, you can't seem to change your posting style. The exact same opinions, always with the exact same inability to admit that you're wrong on anything, no matter how minor. You're Ada as far as I'm concerned. She doesn't have the imagination to create a different persona.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 2:44:42 GMT
That's what you said last time. Then in the end you said you were a different person because you had started using a different nick. The thing is, you can't seem to change your posting style. The exact same opinions, always with the exact same inability to admit that you're wrong on anything, no matter how minor. You're Ada as far as I'm concerned. She doesn't have the imagination to create a different persona. It's going to be hilarious the first time she accuses me of being an American.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 22, 2017 2:45:17 GMT
" I have a friend who owns a parrot and it says really cool things. I don't think it's a christian either. And by the way, there's no such thing as a woman deacon in 'Christianity the Real thing'. That much I know." So that would be a big no then to my question if you have read the bible as you haven't heard of Phoebe ( Romans 16:1–2). She was a deacon (a word that means servant). " Actually it wouldn't." Oh, yes it would. But what do you know, that haven't even read the bible. " What a joke.How old are you anyway? Lighten up." You find fighting for equality funny? We are truly two very different people. " Okay help me here, what is "talking down to" exactly?" Hang on, mr/mrs/miss/it "I know all the big words and how to use them", you are asking for my help? *fainting from shock*
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 22, 2017 2:57:36 GMT
" I have a friend who owns a parrot and it says really cool things. I don't think it's a christian either. And by the way, there's no such thing as a woman deacon in 'Christianity the Real thing'. That much I know." So that would be a big no then to my question if you have read the bible as you haven't heard of Phoebe ( Romans 16:1–2). She was a deacon (a word that means servant). " Actually it wouldn't." Oh, yes it would. But what do you know, that haven't even read the bible. " What a joke.How old are you anyway? Lighten up." You find fighting for equality funny? We are truly two very different people. " Okay help me here, what is "talking down to" exactly?" Hang on, mr/mrs/miss/it "I know all the big words and how to use them", you are asking for my help? *fainting from shock* Women "deacons" nowadays are FAR from 'servants', except if it means to say they serve themselves. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 22, 2017 4:40:29 GMT
" I have a friend who owns a parrot and it says really cool things. I don't think it's a christian either. And by the way, there's no such thing as a woman deacon in 'Christianity the Real thing'. That much I know." So that would be a big no then to my question if you have read the bible as you haven't heard of Phoebe ( Romans 16:1–2). She was a deacon (a word that means servant). " Actually it wouldn't." Oh, yes it would. But what do you know, that haven't even read the bible. " What a joke.How old are you anyway? Lighten up." You find fighting for equality funny? We are truly two very different people. " Okay help me here, what is "talking down to" exactly?" Hang on, mr/mrs/miss/it "I know all the big words and how to use them", you are asking for my help? *fainting from shock* Women "deacons" nowadays are FAR from 'servants', except if it means to say they serve themselves. Carry on. N'aww, you felt stupid I see. And yet again you are wrong (you must be used to it by now). Prove otherwise. Or are you just going to say "Google" as you allways do when you painted yourself into a corner?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 22, 2017 5:14:11 GMT
What you wrote doesn't even make sense (to favor you). Try again. Favor me? Are you under the impression of that I am a christian? Sorry to disappoint you, i'm not. But on the question of how that don't favor you, the answer is that according to the bible (a book i've read several times, have you?) Jesus would never have talked down to homosexuals like you and others do. You are not a christian in the spirit of Jesus teachings, so that would make you a "christian". My best friend is a deacon and she is totally for gay marriage, female bishops, helping refugees etc, but according to you, she is not a christian. What a joke. I find it almost amusing that atheist people consider themselves experts on how Christians should be! Jesus never said "party on dudes" to homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 22, 2017 5:43:40 GMT
Favor me? Are you under the impression of that I am a christian? Sorry to disappoint you, i'm not. But on the question of how that don't favor you, the answer is that according to the bible (a book i've read several times, have you?) Jesus would never have talked down to homosexuals like you and others do. You are not a christian in the spirit of Jesus teachings, so that would make you a "christian". My best friend is a deacon and she is totally for gay marriage, female bishops, helping refugees etc, but according to you, she is not a christian. What a joke. I find it almost amusing that atheist people consider themselves experts on how Christians should be! Jesus never said "party on dudes" to homosexuals. I find it even more amusing that some "christians" never can grasp the idea of an atheist that are intrested in theology. And i'm amazed that the people pretending that homosexuality is condemned by the bibel, never check older versions of it, because then they would know, that the text in First Epistle to the Corinthians now being interpreted as "men that sleeps with men" actually from the beginning was "Men that sleeps with boys". Pedophiles. Have you read the bible even once?
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Feb 22, 2017 6:16:44 GMT
I find it almost amusing that atheist people consider themselves experts on how Christians should be! Jesus never said "party on dudes" to homosexuals. I find it even more amusing that some "christians" never can grasp the idea of an atheist that are intrested in theology. And i'm amazed that the people pretending that homosexuality is condemned by the bibel, never check older versions of it, because then they would know, that the text in First Epistle to the Corinthians now being interpreted as "men that sleeps with men" actually from the beginning was "Men that sleeps with boys". Pedophiles. Have you read the bible even once? Jesus never said anything specifically about homosexuality. Period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 6:41:41 GMT
My husband and I play bridge with another couple every Wednesday. This other couple says lots of disparaging things about gay people. Today they went over the top. They often talk about gay marriage and how it should not be allowed, this time the husband went on about pedophilia and how 'Almost all gay men are pedophiles'. How does one deal with such people while still trying to keep love in your heart? Is gay people getting married something that bothers you? If so.... why? No, I don't care, I'm good with people loving each other
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 22, 2017 6:42:58 GMT
I find it almost amusing that atheist people consider themselves experts on how Christians should be! Jesus never said "party on dudes" to homosexuals. I find it even more amusing that some "christians" never can grasp the idea of an atheist that are intrested in theology. And i'm amazed that the people pretending that homosexuality is condemned by the bibel, never check older versions of it, because then they would know, that the text in First Epistle to the Corinthians now being interpreted as "men that sleeps with men" actually from the beginning was "Men that sleeps with boys". Pedophiles. Have you read the bible even once? Wow hostile much? I read the Bible all the time and you are lying about Corinthians. (Maybe you are not lying and just believe whoever told you that but the Bible has not been changed.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 22, 2017 7:11:14 GMT
I find it even more amusing that some "christians" never can grasp the idea of an atheist that are intrested in theology. And i'm amazed that the people pretending that homosexuality is condemned by the bibel, never check older versions of it, because then they would know, that the text in First Epistle to the Corinthians now being interpreted as "men that sleeps with men" actually from the beginning was "Men that sleeps with boys". Pedophiles. Have you read the bible even once? Wow hostile much? I read the Bible all the time and you are lying about Corinthians. (Maybe you are not lying and just believe whoever told you that but the Bible has not been changed. Awhina, knowledge isn't hostility, but when knowing nothing, people tend to see the people that knows a lot as a threat. Really, the Bible hasn't changed? Why do you make things so simple for me? Lets take a look at the swedish bible and the vers in which homosexuality is being interpreted. Of today it says Män (men) but in the 1526 Gustav Vasa Bible it says drängaskändare (boy-violator). Or are you claiming that the swedish bible isn't valid? It was our first one, so directly translated from latin. The bible has been edited several times, something else would be stupid, as languages evolve and words meaning change. Look at these quotes: 1526: J haffuen hördt, ath thet är sagt / ögha för ögha / och tand för tand / Men iagh sägher idher / athi skolen ey stå thet onda emoot / vthan är thet så någhor slåår tigh wedh thet höghra kinbenet / så wendt honom och thet andra til / Och om någhor wil gå til retta medh tigh / och tagha tin kiortel j frå tigh / lät honom och haffua kåpona medh / Och om någhor nödhgar tigh ena milo / så gack twå medh honom / Geff honom som aff tigh bedhes / och wendt tigh ey j frå honom / som någhot wil läna aff tigh2000: Ni har hört att det är sagt: Öga för öga och tand för tand. Men jag säger er: värj er inte mot det onda. Nej, om någon slår dig på högra kinden, så vänd också den andra mot honom. Om någon vill processa med dig för att få din skjorta, så ge honom din mantel också. Om någon vill tvinga dig att följa med en mil i hans tjänst, så gå då två mil med honom. Ge åt den som ber dig, och vänd inte ryggen åt den som vill låna av digI know you don't speak swedish, but you will se differences. If you hade spoken swedish, you would also notice thing like that in the 1526 version, you should not turn away from the people in need, whilst in the 2000 version it says that you should not turn your back at them. Similar sentances, but giv it 500 years more and someone translating it, could read as the people in need can't be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 22, 2017 7:24:11 GMT
Wow hostile much? I read the Bible all the time and you are lying about Corinthians. (Maybe you are not lying and just believe whoever told you that but the Bible has not been changed. Awhina, knowledge isn't hostility, but when knowing nothing, people tend to see the people that knows a lot as a threat. Really, the Bible hasn't changed? Why do you make things so simple for me? Lets take a look at the swedish bible and the vers in which homosexuality is being interpreted. Of today it says Män (men) but in the 1526 Gustav Vasa Bible it says drängaskändare (boy-violator). Or are you claiming that the swedish bible isn't valid? It was our first one, so directly translated from latin. The bible has been edited several times, something else would be stupid, as languages evolve and words meaning change. Look at these quotes: 1526: J haffuen hördt, ath thet är sagt / ögha för ögha / och tand för tand / Men iagh sägher idher / athi skolen ey stå thet onda emoot / vthan är thet så någhor slåår tigh wedh thet höghra kinbenet / så wendt honom och thet andra til / Och om någhor wil gå til retta medh tigh / och tagha tin kiortel j frå tigh / lät honom och haffua kåpona medh / Och om någhor nödhgar tigh ena milo / så gack twå medh honom / Geff honom som aff tigh bedhes / och wendt tigh ey j frå honom / som någhot wil läna aff tigh2000: Ni har hört att det är sagt: Öga för öga och tand för tand. Men jag säger er: värj er inte mot det onda. Nej, om någon slår dig på högra kinden, så vänd också den andra mot honom. Om någon vill processa med dig för att få din skjorta, så ge honom din mantel också. Om någon vill tvinga dig att följa med en mil i hans tjänst, så gå då två mil med honom. Ge åt den som ber dig, och vänd inte ryggen åt den som vill låna av digI know you don't speak swedish, but you will se differences. If you hade spoken swedish, you would also notice thing like that in the 1526 version, you should not turn away from the people in need, whilst in the 2000 version it says that you should not turn your back at them. Similar sentances, but giv it 500 years more and someone translating it, could read as the people in need can't be trusted. How many times have I got to say that news translations don't mean changes of fact? You need to believe what you say is true. You know I don't speak Swedish but I assure you that in English the New Testament definitely condemns adult men having sex with each other. The Latin Bible was not the original and more up to date versions use more reliable texts than the Latin. So over all what you clsim is inaccurate.
|
|
londonbird
Sophomore
@londonbird
Posts: 250
Likes: 82
|
Post by londonbird on Feb 22, 2017 7:32:10 GMT
All of that is true from a Christian perspective though. Not this Christian or the Christians I associate with so please don't respond for all Christians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 7:35:43 GMT
Awhina, knowledge isn't hostility, but when knowing nothing, people tend to see the people that knows a lot as a threat. Really, the Bible hasn't changed? Why do you make things so simple for me? Lets take a look at the swedish bible and the vers in which homosexuality is being interpreted. Of today it says Män (men) but in the 1526 Gustav Vasa Bible it says drängaskändare (boy-violator). Or are you claiming that the swedish bible isn't valid? It was our first one, so directly translated from latin. The bible has been edited several times, something else would be stupid, as languages evolve and words meaning change. Look at these quotes: 1526: J haffuen hördt, ath thet är sagt / ögha för ögha / och tand för tand / Men iagh sägher idher / athi skolen ey stå thet onda emoot / vthan är thet så någhor slåår tigh wedh thet höghra kinbenet / så wendt honom och thet andra til / Och om någhor wil gå til retta medh tigh / och tagha tin kiortel j frå tigh / lät honom och haffua kåpona medh / Och om någhor nödhgar tigh ena milo / så gack twå medh honom / Geff honom som aff tigh bedhes / och wendt tigh ey j frå honom / som någhot wil läna aff tigh2000: Ni har hört att det är sagt: Öga för öga och tand för tand. Men jag säger er: värj er inte mot det onda. Nej, om någon slår dig på högra kinden, så vänd också den andra mot honom. Om någon vill processa med dig för att få din skjorta, så ge honom din mantel också. Om någon vill tvinga dig att följa med en mil i hans tjänst, så gå då två mil med honom. Ge åt den som ber dig, och vänd inte ryggen åt den som vill låna av digI know you don't speak swedish, but you will se differences. If you hade spoken swedish, you would also notice thing like that in the 1526 version, you should not turn away from the people in need, whilst in the 2000 version it says that you should not turn your back at them. Similar sentances, but giv it 500 years more and someone translating it, could read as the people in need can't be trusted. How many times have I got to say that news translations don't mean changes of fact? You need to believe what you say is true. You know I don't speak Swedish but I assure you that in English the New Testament definitely condemns adult men having sex with each other. The Latin Bible was not the original and more up to date versions use more reliable texts than the Latin. So over all what you clsim is inaccurate. Do tell Ada... What are these more reliable texts that you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 22, 2017 7:35:59 GMT
Awhina, knowledge isn't hostility, but when knowing nothing, people tend to see the people that knows a lot as a threat. Really, the Bible hasn't changed? Why do you make things so simple for me? Lets take a look at the swedish bible and the vers in which homosexuality is being interpreted. Of today it says Män (men) but in the 1526 Gustav Vasa Bible it says drängaskändare (boy-violator). Or are you claiming that the swedish bible isn't valid? It was our first one, so directly translated from latin. The bible has been edited several times, something else would be stupid, as languages evolve and words meaning change. Look at these quotes: 1526: J haffuen hördt, ath thet är sagt / ögha för ögha / och tand för tand / Men iagh sägher idher / athi skolen ey stå thet onda emoot / vthan är thet så någhor slåår tigh wedh thet höghra kinbenet / så wendt honom och thet andra til / Och om någhor wil gå til retta medh tigh / och tagha tin kiortel j frå tigh / lät honom och haffua kåpona medh / Och om någhor nödhgar tigh ena milo / så gack twå medh honom / Geff honom som aff tigh bedhes / och wendt tigh ey j frå honom / som någhot wil läna aff tigh2000: Ni har hört att det är sagt: Öga för öga och tand för tand. Men jag säger er: värj er inte mot det onda. Nej, om någon slår dig på högra kinden, så vänd också den andra mot honom. Om någon vill processa med dig för att få din skjorta, så ge honom din mantel också. Om någon vill tvinga dig att följa med en mil i hans tjänst, så gå då två mil med honom. Ge åt den som ber dig, och vänd inte ryggen åt den som vill låna av digI know you don't speak swedish, but you will se differences. If you hade spoken swedish, you would also notice thing like that in the 1526 version, you should not turn away from the people in need, whilst in the 2000 version it says that you should not turn your back at them. Similar sentances, but giv it 500 years more and someone translating it, could read as the people in need can't be trusted. How many times have I got to say that news translations don't mean changes of fact? You need to believe what you say is true. You know I don't speak Swedish but I assure you that in English the New Testament definitely condemns adult men having sex with each other. The Latin Bible was not the original and more up to date versions use more reliable texts than the Latin. So over all what you clsim is inaccurate. You don't read what I write do you? I just proved that the bible has been altered. The latin on at the time, was closer to the original than our bibles of today. Have you ever played that game when you sit in a circle and send whispers on by one, you know, I whisper "A black cat" and after i has been passed over several people, you get the whisper "Back at you"? It's actually the exact same things with the bible, the more people that have translated and edited it, the more it moves from the original, colouring the text with the ethics of the time. " The Latin Bible was not the original and more up to date versions use more reliable texts than the Latin. So over all what you clsim is inaccurate. " And suddenly, you admit to the bible being edited.
|
|