Posts by ruggedeagle10

electrictiger25 said:I honestly don’t even know where to begin. On paper, my life looks absolutely flawless—I’m young, I’ve got my head on straight, I’m nearly wrapping up my degree, I look decent enough, I’ve been in a stable relationship for several years now, and I have plenty of hobbies to keep me busy... Yet, for the last year or two, this creeping sense of emptiness and anxiety has started to settle in. I suspect it’s tied to the fact that I’m rapidly approaching that stage of life where society expects you to land a career, settle down, start a family, and just slide effortlessly into some "happily ever after" script. It is particularly grating when my parents start their usual litany of expectations: "Well, in two or three years, you'll probably have a baby, so you should start preparing... We need to start saving up for your wedding... You really need to find a job in your field," and so on and so forth. My best friend is following the exact same trajectory; she’s finishing up college and we spend our coffee dates discussing wedding guest lists, the struggle of the job hunt, and how she’ll likely have kids within the next couple of years...

🙂

It makes me wonder, what exactly are we? Are we just some kind of pre-programmed biological machines? Does anyone actually bother to ask if *I* want any of this? Why am I supposed to have a child just because it’s considered "normal" or because "that's what everyone does"? Why am I expected to marry and "settle down"? Whenever I pose these questions to my family, they look at me as if I’ve completely lost my mind—most of the time they just ignore me entirely and steamroll ahead with their lectures about how things "must" be done. Even when I was a little girl, I never played with baby dolls, I never spent my time daydreaming about a white wedding, and I never harbored any desire for children (and I certainly don't have any now). So why on earth should I suddenly undergo this transformation just to satisfy an external expectation? This is my life, and mine alone. Don't get me wrong, my parents don't have much sway over my actual decisions—I'll ultimately do whatever I want regardless of whether they disown me or not—but these constant expectations are profoundly disorienting...

Please don't take this the wrong way; I’m not trying to offend anyone. There are people who find genuine bliss in marriage and parenthood, who truly love that lifestyle, and more power to them. But I crave something more substantial than that; I refuse to live my life according to a cookie-cutter template. Find a job, work a standard 9-to-5, pick up the kids from school, prep breakfast and dinner, have intimacy with a spouse in the evening... and repeat that loop for thirty years? Then eventually get some grandkids, retire, and spend my mornings picking out produce at the local supermarket... Is that it? Is that the entirety of a human existence? 😲

Tell me, am I losing my mind for wanting something more (even if I can't quite articulate what that "something" is)? I feel a profound sense of pity for myself when I realize that at only 23, I already feel this utterly miserable... if this is how it feels now, what does the future hold? I've become disillusioned with people, too; I only have one true friend left (though even with her, I don't feel I can truly open up), and I simply lack the energy to invest in building relationships with anyone else. I find I only truly connect with animals; at least they are honest and instinctual. Perhaps I should just pop a few antidepressants. Then I could just fake a smile, wear a mask, retreat into my own little shell, and pretend to be fulfilled and happy just like everyone else. 🤷

...

Hello.

I don't mean to alarm you, but if you continue to follow that internal "voice" or those nagging questions currently haunting you, you should prepare for an increasing number of inner conflicts. You will find yourself pulled in opposing directions, one part of your psyche dragging you one way while another pulls you the opposite, until you finally commit to a definitive path.

Based on what you've shared and the nature of your inquiries, it seems evident that you possess the potential for much more than just a "standard," conventional, secular existence. This suggests you may have a calling toward the spiritual realm—to perform acts of service for others and to surrender yourself to THAT purpose.

If my assessment is correct and you continue down this road, I would advise you to be brave and pursue it regardless of the cost. It will be a difficult journey, fraught with potential friction and misunderstanding from those around you. You may face ridicule or even rejection from everyone—friends, family, your entire social circle. But believe me, there is no greater freedom, no deeper joy, and no more profound fulfillment than what you will discover on that path. It is there that we truly find ourselves, encounter our primal essence, and live Life in its absolute fullness. We "soar like birds" and become who we were truly meant to be. In short, we gain everything... not to mention the ability to share the fruits of that journey by helping others.

Whatever happens, I wish you the best.

Best regards,

blueraven6 said:Maybe try viewing that frustration as an opportunity for growth rather than expecting life to bend to your will. If everything is going wrong, maybe that's just a sign that something needs to shift. It could be a prompt to look at where you might be slipping and use it as a challenge to change your mindset or your actions. When you take action, just do the best you can and try not to obsess over the outcome; if it doesn't work out perfectly, you've still learned something. Just keep moving forward. Nothing is ever handed to us on a silver platter, and we all start from different places—some people definitely get dealt better hands from day one. But it’s easy to just complain and let life toss you around like a rudderless boat on the Atlantic. If we just react blindly to every little thing that happens, we aren't going anywhere. Sometimes you have to pause. Don't just react; instead, step back and decide on a different response. Try to handle it rationally rather than emotionally, without any ego or need to prove anything. It's like hitting a "stop" button to just think for a second. In those moments, you realize you actually have the freedom to choose, rather than just following old emotional patterns. You might even find a bit of joy in realizing how much control you actually have. 😉

Exactly. Spot on. That is precisely the point.

vivideagle8 said:Everything is just falling apart right now. Every single part of my life—no matter what I try, nothing sticks. I feel terrible. I truly, deeply want to believe that things will get better and that I can stay spiritually fulfilled, but it feels like I’m losing ground. I'm starting to burn out. 😢 Today has been especially brutal. So much has piled up over these last two years, and after finally letting myself cry it all out, I came here to post this. Maybe someone else will find it helpful one day...

I want to ask: how do you all manage to keep your faith strong when life reaches a point where nothing seems to make sense anymore? How do you maintain your spirituality and inner peace when everything is pushing you toward total hopelessness?

The way I see it, I never stay down for long after a fall. There is always something GOOD within us—a core strength you can grab onto to pull yourself back up.

We are capable of far more than we give ourselves credit for. Ultimately, everything within our sphere of influence depends on our own actions.

In the same vein, everything concerning your path is in your hands—in the sense that you should give everything you can, based on your current capacity and the circumstances you find yourself in. The goal is to simply make the best possible choice available to you right now. Take concrete action. If you find yourself in a moment where you are expected to react or act, but instead you pause, reflect, and "look inward"—just as Quincy so eloquently put it above—you will realize that we all possess this fundamental freedom of choice, regardless of how small it may seem. Recognizing that capacity provides a clear sign that you possess a certain inherent power and that you truly matter to something greater. 🙂 And look, if you stumble in your choices—which we all do, because being human means making mistakes—it doesn't matter. What matters is the intention and the direction you are heading. Over time, those errors will diminish as you gain wisdom, and your sense of self and fulfillment will grow.

Don't waste your energy on despair. Instead, focus your energy on playing the hand you've been dealt as well as you possibly can. Act with that intention, and peace will follow. Regardless of whether you hit a specific target or not, you will have achieved success internally, because you took agency over your own life. And isn't that what we are all actually searching for?

So, practically speaking: identify the goodness currently residing within you. When the first opportunity to act arises, move forward using that inner strength.

Stay strong. Sending love. 🙂

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Those are beautiful sentiments, really—lovely phrases—but they often drift quite far from reality. I could go to Mass every single day, take communion constantly, and yet find that absolutely nothing in my life has shifted. It raises the question: what exactly am I supposed to be changing? To become a "better person"? But what does that even mean? And better for whom? Am I trying to be better for my own sake, or for someone else? My boss at the firm seems to think a "better person" is someone who doesn't bother asking for a raise or a holiday bonus. My wife thinks a "better husband" is the one who makes sure dinner is on the table every single night—even if she's home all day and I'm the one out working. Then there's my brother, who seemingly thinks my only job should be changing my bedridden mother's diapers, all so that once she passes, he can inherit the entire house. In his twisted logic, the less I get and the more he keeps, the closer I'll be to God. 😍
So, "goodness" is a pretty questionable category, isn't it? How much "goodness" can a person practice before they simply turn into a fool? And honestly, being a fool might actually be a bigger sin than being selfish. Being a fool is a sin against oneself. Even Christ didn't go on a hunger strike just because he saw merchants setting up stalls in the temple. If he were just looking to be a "holy man" through self-deprivation, he would have starved himself to teach those merchants a lesson. Instead, he went in there and flipped the tables.

It isn't a matter of "often" or "rarely" when it comes to being disconnected from reality... things either align with the truth, or they don't.

If a person truly desires to change themselves or the world around them, the responsibility lies solely with them to investigate and verify whether those ideals actually function in practice.

Angela Martin20 said:I feel like a complete idiot right now, but whatever
from what I gather, Jesus was accused of all sorts of things, but I'm really stuck on the part where he redeemed our sins through his death... like, why? How exactly does his passing lead to our salvation?

In short:

It is because when you follow His example, you effectively kill the evil within yourself while nurturing the good. This leads to a spiritual rebirth that grants you a level of strength, peace, and joy far greater than any hardship, suffering, or pain this world can throw at you. When you eventually look back—whether later in life or at its very end—and assess where you stand and who you have become compared to who you would have been without the example, guidance, and strength provided by Jesus, you realize He has redeemed you from sin and all its consequences (the agony, the suffering, the emptiness, the lack of purpose, the self-condemnation, and so on).

placidridge56 said:The Bible has been so heavily distorted by church fathers over the centuries that you can't even call its content reliable anymore. What you’re calling "sincere motives" is actually just you doubling down on your own lies and blindness. If you truly believe you're receiving "truth from God" while everyone else is wrong simply because they don't share your specific prejudices, then all I can say is: enjoy your stay in your own private asylum.

"Those who belong to the truth will recognize it; they hear my voice and follow it..."

Give me the lost and hidden words of Christ's Gospel—those drowned in seas of lies and obscured by layers of deception—and I will find them. Their light, warmth, and wisdom will always shine through, no matter how much darkness tries to smother them.

Every single word posted here under the name "Khar" is absolute truth, plain as day; it's just that the blind refuse to see it.

Khar, keep doing exactly what you're doing. You aren't alone in this... 😉

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.

FlashG finally caught on to what I’ve known from the very beginning—that core truth you find so controversial and problematic. But honestly? Your inability to grasp it isn't my burden to carry. Why should I exhaust myself trying to explain the obvious to someone who refuses to see?

Perhaps you are the one who needs to come to terms with yourself first—to actually sit down, listen, and then attempt to truly understand what others are saying.

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
What does that Native American symbol actually signify to me? I find myself staring at this string of characters—this "akflajfioah"—and I can't help but wonder: what exactly are we trying to achieve here? Is this a sudden lapse in communication, a digital shrug, or perhaps a quiet protest against the very idea of coherent discourse? It feels less like a statement and more like the sound of someone losing their grip on the keyboard, or maybe just someone testing the limits of an empty void. One has to ask oneself: does randomness serve a purpose in a world already drowning in noise, or is it simply a symptom of our collective exhaustion?Nothing? Absolutely nothing at all.

But what if he actually sat down and explained the true significance of it all a few times? If you have been around this forum long enough, surely you have developed at least a basic understanding of what the Cross actually represents to a Christian?

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
Of course, when have I ever actually claimed otherwise? Go ahead—pull up one of my quotes that uses those exact words. I'll wait.

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
When exactly was that, and where did I say it? Just give me one quote—just one single quote!

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
To me, "akflajfioah" means absolutely nothing, but Love? That means everything!

If a Native American were to write to me several times explaining that akflajfioah equals love, I would understand him.

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
Your analogy is flawed; it has nothing to do with my actual statement, which is what you find objectionable!

Actually, it’s quite clear why you find it offensive—it’s because you fail to grasp the sheer depth and dimension of the Cross.

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
It sounds that way to you because you lack the capacity to understand others, nor do you seem to care to try.

The entire issue stems from a single absurdity... because of your refusal to understand anyone else, people end up getting issued warnings in the complaint book!! You expect others to understand you, to adapt to your ignorance and your lack of comprehension, so they tread carefully in their speech... yet you refuse to do the same for them. Are you really demanding from others what you won't provide yourself??

And when you don't get your way... you punish people shamelessly!

rowdyhawk10 said:Well put. If ruggedeagle10 doesn't understand me, I suppose he might understand you. You're right that Christians don't have a monopoly on love. I'd only add that no one else holds that monopoly either...

And that’s why THOSE WHO DON'T LIVE WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH YET STILL LIVE THEIR LOVE (as you so nicely described them)—well, no one has the right to label them as satanists just because they don't discuss love through the prism of the cross and crucifixion, but perhaps through yin-yang or some other symbol instead.

That is why this statement IS OFFENSIVE:

Because the Cross is tied EXCLUSIVELY TO Christianity and no other faith. Love exists AND IS PREACHED IN MANY RELIGIONS, not just the Christian one. Of course, in those other faiths, love is preached—not through the cross—but it exists through various other forms and symbols. Not everything that isn't Christian is satanic. I hope you agree with this. Best,

Where did I ever claim that Christians hold a monopoly??

I understand Peter Stewart6 perfectly well, and that is precisely what I have been saying all along; she simply explained it more thoroughly than I did, but you remain blind to it!

rowdyhawk10 said:Well put. If ruggedeagle10 doesn't understand me, I suppose he might understand you. You're right that Christians don't have a monopoly on love. I'd only add that no one else holds that monopoly either...

And that’s why THOSE WHO DON'T LIVE WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH YET STILL LIVE THEIR LOVE (as you so nicely described them)—well, no one has the right to label them as satanists just because they don't discuss love through the prism of the cross and crucifixion, but perhaps through yin-yang or some other symbol instead.

That is why this statement IS OFFENSIVE:

Because the Cross is tied EXCLUSIVELY TO Christianity and no other faith. Love exists AND IS PREACHED IN MANY RELIGIONS, not just the Christian one. Of course, in those other faiths, love is preached—not through the cross—but it exists through various other forms and symbols. Not everything that isn't Christian is satanic. I hope you agree with this. Best,

Do some actual reading of my posts! How many times do I have to explain that a tribal inhabitant in the deepest jungle could be a Christian at heart without ever having heard a single word about Christianity or the historical Jesus??

If he lives the cross, even if he’s never even seen the symbol, I could sit him down, explain what the Cross represents in his own language, and he would embrace me as a brother. Why? Because he has that inside him... because he embodies that Cross every single day (through sacrifice, through enduring suffering, through giving himself up for others) = Love!

So, according to your logic, I’m calling that man a servant of Satan?? Please...

Try to learn what the Cross actually means to Christians, otherwise you’ll just keep running into these exact same misunderstandings wherever you go!

In response to me and, say, FlashG—assuming you’ve actually grasped our point—you could have simply written: "You're both right. Anyone preaching love without the Cross (understanding what the Cross signifies to us) is essentially preaching a love without suffering, without sacrificing for others or even one's enemies, without mercy, and without forgiveness. Such a person is effectively serving the devil... they are a walking contradiction, preaching a love they don't actually possess."

rowdyhawk10 said:Well put. If ruggedeagle10 doesn't understand me, I suppose he might understand you. You're right that Christians don't have a monopoly on love. I'd only add that no one else holds that monopoly either...

And that’s why THOSE WHO DON'T LIVE WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH YET STILL LIVE THEIR LOVE (as you so nicely described them)—well, no one has the right to label them as satanists just because they don't discuss love through the prism of the cross and crucifixion, but perhaps through yin-yang or some other symbol instead.

That is why this statement IS OFFENSIVE:

Because the Cross is tied EXCLUSIVELY TO Christianity and no other faith. Love exists AND IS PREACHED IN MANY RELIGIONS, not just the Christian one. Of course, in those other faiths, love is preached—not through the cross—but it exists through various other forms and symbols. Not everything that isn't Christian is satanic. I hope you agree with this. Best,

I never said that... it's just further proof of your inability to grasp the Christian perspective or truly understand the faith.

I constantly write about the Cross through the universal value of Love that it symbolizes for me—the act of self-sacrifice for another... yet you view it solely as a tool for torture!

That's your problem, not mine... 😉

As I have already stated, and as has been patently obvious for quite some time now... attempting to explain this to you or break it down into more digestible terms seems almost futile. Is it truly necessary to repeat what is already laid bare? 🤷

rowdyhawk10 said:That isn't true!! He’s actually the one calling those who preach love without love (which is what the Cross = love) devils.

Uh,
it seems you're clearly and intentionally twisting the quote, specifically what FlashG actually said:

He didn't say: "those who preach love without love"
he said "anyone who preaches love WITHOUT THE CROSS" is Satan.

Here is the link to what he wrote:

If a goat lies, the horns don't lie. 🤷

When you claim the cross is some kind of love,
to me, it sounds like someone saying a guillotine is love to them.

Oh, right, my apologies—you used that same quote again, which is exactly why another user (FlashG) previously got a warning, and that's why you got one too. Simply put, neither you nor FlashG can say "anyone who preaches love without the cross is Satan". Christians don't have a monopoly on love. Buddhists preach love without the cross, Muslims do too, and everyone else does, so you can't go around calling 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had warned FlashG but left you alone, then he would have said:"Why am I the only one who got a warning?!" We really ought to be fair and apply the rules consistently to everyone. Even if some Muslim individual had claimed that anyone preaching Love without the crescent and star is actually Satan, I suppose I would have handed them a red card as well. Best, 🙂
I am not twisting anyone's words. I am simply explaining exactly what FlashG intended to convey—what he actually meant. It is my interpretation, and frankly, it is one that I share. I have stated quite clearly, on more than one occasion, that... cross!

To us, Christ's cross represents Love itself, so in that sense, it hardly matters whether one phrasing is used over the other. That is precisely why I felt the need to write it out again—to bridge the gap and provide a clearer explanation once more.

Don't go thinking I'm going to do this all over again. Four times. It seems we have reached a point where I am once again tasked with the tedious necessity of explaining things. Why is it that clarity is such a rare commodity in our modern discourse? One would think that with all the information at our fingertips, understanding would follow naturally, yet here we are, circling the same drain of confusion. Is it a lack of attention, or perhaps a fundamental refusal to grasp the obvious? I find myself wondering if the effort required to clarify these points is ever truly rewarded, or if we are simply shouting into a void of indifference. It’s all the same thing..

And so, we finally see exactly who is relying on nothing but cheap distortions and mental gymnastics to mislead everyone else. It’s all very transparent, really. But let’s be clear: those tactics don't work on me anymore. All those twisted arguments you're spinning here? You might as well direct them toward your own reflection, because I'm certainly not buying any of it.

rowdyhawk10 said:That isn't true!! He’s actually the one calling those who preach love without love (which is what the Cross = love) devils.

Uh,
it seems you're clearly and intentionally twisting the quote, specifically what FlashG actually said:

He didn't say: "those who preach love without love"
he said "anyone who preaches love WITHOUT THE CROSS" is Satan.

Here is the link to what he wrote:

If a goat lies, the horns don't lie. 🤷

When you claim the cross is some kind of love,
to me, it sounds like someone saying a guillotine is love to them.

Oh, right, my apologies—you used that same quote again, which is exactly why another user (FlashG) previously got a warning, and that's why you got one too. Simply put, neither you nor FlashG can say "anyone who preaches love without the cross is Satan". Christians don't have a monopoly on love. Buddhists preach love without the cross, Muslims do too, and everyone else does, so you can't go around calling 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had warned FlashG but left you alone, then he would have said:"Why am I the only one who got a warning?!" We really ought to be fair and apply the rules consistently to everyone. Even if some Muslim individual had claimed that anyone preaching Love without the crescent and star is actually Satan, I suppose I would have handed them a red card as well. Best, 🙂
To you. It’s exactly the same thing! It's all one and the same to me, to FlashG, and to millions upon millions of Christians out there. Not quite.!!!

Should we all be forced to conform to your blindness and ignorance? Must we all tailor our words specifically so that, given your total lack of comprehension regarding the Cross, you aren't triggered by the nonsense you clearly fail to grasp? Is it really true that because of your singular issue, we are the ones facing warnings and bans? 🤣

Do you actually grasp the sheer level of absurdity and the circus you’re putting on here? Does any part of this even register with you...? (Don't bother answering; it was purely rhetorical.)

rowdyhawk10 said:That isn't true!! He’s actually the one calling those who preach love without love (which is what the Cross = love) devils.

Uh,
it seems you're clearly and intentionally twisting the quote, specifically what FlashG actually said:

He didn't say: "those who preach love without love"
he said "anyone who preaches love WITHOUT THE CROSS" is Satan.

Here is the link to what he wrote:

If a goat lies, the horns don't lie. 🤷

When you claim the cross is some kind of love,
to me, it sounds like someone saying a guillotine is love to them.

Oh, right, my apologies—you used that same quote again, which is exactly why another user (FlashG) previously got a warning, and that's why you got one too. Simply put, neither you nor FlashG can say "anyone who preaches love without the cross is Satan". Christians don't have a monopoly on love. Buddhists preach love without the cross, Muslims do too, and everyone else does, so you can't go around calling 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had warned FlashG but left you alone, then he would have said:"Why am I the only one who got a warning?!" We really ought to be fair and apply the rules consistently to everyone. Even if some Muslim individual had claimed that anyone preaching Love without the crescent and star is actually Satan, I suppose I would have handed them a red card as well. Best, 🙂
Am I free to say whatever I please, or are you actually going to try and silence me?

I intend to speak this specific truth and bear witness to Jesus's cross whenever I am called upon to do so. There is nothing you can do to stop me—not your ridiculous little little rules, nor your proven distortions, lies, deceptions, and the sheer vitriol you spread wherever you go through your writing and your actions as a moderator!

rowdyhawk10 said:That isn't true!! He’s actually the one calling those who preach love without love (which is what the Cross = love) devils.

Uh,
it seems you're clearly and intentionally twisting the quote, specifically what FlashG actually said:

He didn't say: "those who preach love without love"
he said "anyone who preaches love WITHOUT THE CROSS" is Satan.

Here is the link to what he wrote:

If a goat lies, the horns don't lie. 🤷

When you claim the cross is some kind of love,
to me, it sounds like someone saying a guillotine is love to them.

Oh, right, my apologies—you used that same quote again, which is exactly why another user (FlashG) previously got a warning, and that's why you got one too. Simply put, neither you nor FlashG can say "anyone who preaches love without the cross is Satan". Christians don't have a monopoly on love. Buddhists preach love without the cross, Muslims do too, and everyone else does, so you can't go around calling 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had warned FlashG but left you alone, then he would have said:"Why am I the only one who got a warning?!" We really ought to be fair and apply the rules consistently to everyone. Even if some Muslim individual had claimed that anyone preaching Love without the crescent and star is actually Satan, I suppose I would have handed them a red card as well. Best, 🙂
These are nothing more than your vague assumptions and prejudices, fueled by whatever reasons or blindness you possess. I won't bother dissecting them further because they are entirely beside the point... all you're doing is proving that even after my repeated explanations, you still haven't grasped a single word I'm saying.

rowdyhawk10 said:The user FlashG called all non-Christians devils; he asked why he received a warning and was given the answer here.

According to the code of conduct and complaint book ii (click), lobbying is prohibited, and you can only protest if you have been personally offended by a moderator's actions. So, by lobbying like this, you are intentionally violating the rules of the complaint book sub-forum. It seems you don't care to follow them because you feel you're above them and that they aren't binding for you. That doesn't seem particularly fair. Regards

That simply isn't true! It was actually him who preaches love without love (which is what the Cross represents—true love) and called them devils. I merely agreed with him, stating that such people are from Satan and are nothing but liars!

And here you are, putting yourself in the position of punishing people who write about the greatest possible demonstrated and proven love—about the dimension of the Cross in which all good and selfless sacrifices for another (anyone) are contained. Such sacrifice is the holiest thing and the ultimate affirmation of love; it is the prime example of man for man, and subsequently, God for man!

Because you fail to grasp this confession of faith due to your own ignorance and blindness, you take it upon yourself to misinterpret and falsely characterize first FlashG and then myself. In doing so, you effectively punish a testimony of faith and the celebration of such greatness. But how could I ever hope to explain or bring such things closer to someone like you?.. 🤷

It is as tragic and absurd as much of what you contribute to this forum.

rowdyhawk10 said:The user FlashG called all non-Christians devils; he asked why he received a warning and was given the answer here.

According to the code of conduct and complaint book ii (click), lobbying is prohibited, and you can only protest if you have been personally offended by a moderator's actions. So, by lobbying like this, you are intentionally violating the rules of the complaint book sub-forum. It seems you don't care to follow them because you feel you're above them and that they aren't binding for you. That doesn't seem particularly fair. Regards

Where on earth do you see any lobbying? I am participating in a thread regarding the crucifixion, quoting a post that is perfectly relevant to the topic, agreeing with it, and writing my entire response in accordance with the subject at hand.

I am personally "aggrieved by a moderator's action"—did you even bother to look at the link I provided above??

So tell me, are you deliberately trying to mislead me again, as is your custom, or do you genuinely struggle to comprehend the forum rules??

rowdyhawk10 said:The user FlashG called all non-Christians devils; he asked why he received a warning and was given the answer here.

According to the code of conduct and complaint book ii (click), lobbying is prohibited, and you can only protest if you have been personally offended by a moderator's actions. So, by lobbying like this, you are intentionally violating the rules of the complaint book sub-forum. It seems you don't care to follow them because you feel you're above them and that they aren't binding for you. That doesn't seem particularly fair. Regards

Are these really your words, coming from you after everything that has transpired (read: the persecution of Christians)!??? 😲 Simply scandalous!!

And didn't I already tell you not to quote me or address me directly except in one specific instance, and do you know which one that is??!

I have stated this more times than I can count: I have no interest in your false explanations, designed solely for the purpose of further deception. I am only writing to ensure that the darkness you spread through your actions on this forum doesn't get lost in the fog and mud you've created on the complaint book pdf religion!

In the PDF titled Religion, specifically within the thread Why the cross??, there is an attempt to explain the significance of Christ's cross—what it actually represents and its deeper symbolism. Yet, when people try to bear witness to their faith, they are met with nothing but vitriol; they receive enough insults to troll nearly 80% of humanity! 😍 😢

rowdyhawk10 said:Dear Jose Fox4
I am sorry you feel this way. Personally, I find you to be an extremely polite and civilized member of this community. That said, criticizing your church isn't a critique of you personally; any church, including yours, is a public organization and, as such, is naturally subject to both criticism and praise. 🙂

I realize it can be sensitive for a Catholic to have the Catholic Church linked to Nazi ideology, just as it would be sensitive for Muslims if someone were allowed to write without consequence that Muhammad was a thief or a murderer. These are sensitive topics, but we cannot prohibit others from expressing them, as they represent their own free opinions and beliefs. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our forum rules. Specifically, on the Religion subforum, it is clearly stated in the forum rule that there are no "sacred cows"—meaning no protected faiths or churches that are off-limits when it comes to discussing their historical or modern actions. Therefore, the Catholic Church's responsibility regarding its support for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany, or the fascist regime under General Franco in Spain, cannot be treated as a forbidden topic. It is no different than discussing the terrorist attacks by extremists on civilians. Every faith and church is open to free criticism through the expression of arguments and viewpoints, but it is also perfectly fine to defend any faith or church here. You, for instance, could defend your church by citing positive examples of its conduct during the Third Reich or in Franco's Spain. Similarly, Muslims can explain how terrorism contradicts Islam or provide positive examples.

Every member has been familiar with all of this since the day they registered on the forum.

In fact, this is the entire purpose and goal of forum dialogue. 🙂 By exchanging views—even those that are vastly different—and clashing through proper argumentation, we learn from one another, which ultimately contributes to better social conditions and greater understanding among people.

Because of this, I don't believe walking away from the forum is the answer; rather, it is patient dialogue.
Best regards

Go ahead and try to deceive someone else or pull the wool over someone else's eyes—just don't come here trying to ruin my thread. 🤣 With those signature sweet-sounding, hollowly "polite" platitudes—phrases that lost any shred of weight or credibility a long time ago—she seems to be scattering them everywhere. It’s a predictable pattern, really; such empty rhetoric carries no water when her actual actions fail to align with her words even remotely. Does anyone truly expect us to believe the performance when the reality is so glaringly different? 😉

That would be so. It seemed necessary. What is the actual purpose and ultimate goal of a forum dialogue? If things were truly functioning as they should, we wouldn't be seeing dozens of entries in the complaint book regarding your moderation and how you handle this space. If the environment were healthy, I wouldn't have even thought about wasting my time here, filing complaints on a tiny little message board or opening threads like this one. Instead, I could actually enjoy a purposeful, engaging, and genuinely interesting dialogue with fellow users. Wouldn't that be a much better use of everyone's time?

It would be absolutely ideal if things actually worked this way—if there were a genuine desire to see such a state of affairs exist—but frankly, your actions and everything you've done through the moderation process tell a completely different story. I’ll set the actual act of moderation aside for a moment, because you certainly have the right to express your own opinions, so please, go ahead and write what you think; however, the reality of your conduct is diametrically opposed to the ideals you claim to uphold.

Your performance as a moderator on the religion PDF is a primary driver of this entire mess. It seems you find it much more convenient to simply silence anyone or spit on any worldview or belief system that doesn't align with your own—a pattern of behavior that borders on the repulsive, especially considering how much you contribute to this toxicity through your own writing. Naturally, Christians and Christian sanctities are the first to feel the brunt of your bias... (where is the proof? Check page one of this thread).

Many users on this forum have pointed out that your approach is nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissenting voices. It seems like you resort to biased bans whenever someone actually manages to beat you in an argument using logic and facts. Is that really how you intend to maintain a debate? An established fact.I have provided more than enough arguments and evidence within this specific thread and my previous one to address your points. Even then, I have only deconstructed a tiny fraction of the circus and the sheer nonsense you constantly peddle on this forum.

So, even though there is a blatant state of anarchy prevailing on this forum—making it look as if the moderators have completely lost control—some people are skillfully, or perhaps clumsily, exploiting that lack of oversight. They take advantage of the chaos, and here is why. rowdyhawk10Your lies and deceptions aren't going unnoticed, and they won't pass by without consequence. People deserve to be made aware of this reality. For those who actually follow the complaint book pdf religion, that darkness is far too glaringly obvious—it's an eyesore that strikes anyone paying attention.

So, it seems your posts are nothing more than hollow platitudes and empty rhetoric—as if you're simply reciting a script you memorized a long time ago just to sound profound.

rowdyhawk10 said:Dear Jose Fox4
I am sorry you feel this way. Personally, I find you to be an extremely polite and civilized member of this community. That said, criticizing your church isn't a critique of you personally; any church, including yours, is a public organization and, as such, is naturally subject to both criticism and praise. 🙂

I realize it can be sensitive for a Catholic to have the Catholic Church linked to Nazi ideology, just as it would be sensitive for Muslims if someone were allowed to write without consequence that Muhammad was a thief or a murderer. These are sensitive topics, but we cannot prohibit others from expressing them, as they represent their own free opinions and beliefs. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our forum rules. Specifically, on the Religion subforum, it is clearly stated in the forum rule that there are no "sacred cows"—meaning no protected faiths or churches that are off-limits when it comes to discussing their historical or modern actions. Therefore, the Catholic Church's responsibility regarding its support for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany, or the fascist regime under General Franco in Spain, cannot be treated as a forbidden topic. It is no different than discussing the terrorist attacks by extremists on civilians. Every faith and church is open to free criticism through the expression of arguments and viewpoints, but it is also perfectly fine to defend any faith or church here. You, for instance, could defend your church by citing positive examples of its conduct during the Third Reich or in Franco's Spain. Similarly, Muslims can explain how terrorism contradicts Islam or provide positive examples.

Every member has been familiar with all of this since the day they registered on the forum.

In fact, this is the entire purpose and goal of forum dialogue. 🙂 By exchanging views—even those that are vastly different—and clashing through proper argumentation, we learn from one another, which ultimately contributes to better social conditions and greater understanding among people.

Because of this, I don't believe walking away from the forum is the answer; rather, it is patient dialogue.
Best regards

That’s simply not true... what are we supposed to do about a moderator who clearly, demonstrably, and patently abuses their position of power through censorship and biased moderation? What happens to someone like that?

The latest circus: here is the link to the complaint regarding Religion

Someone is hurling insults without any consequences.

rowdyhawk10 said:Lies have short legs, so you basically exposed yourself in your very next post. ...

But you aren't lying to us. You’re only lying to yourself. ...

As I said, lies don't go far. ...

And then you act as if you were dead drunk...

He takes offense when I write in the complaint

ruggedeagle10 said:...
What am I supposed to explain over and over again? This user clearly lacks the capacity to grasp my point, even after repeated explanations...

after I

ruggedeagle10 said:...
Secondly, it doesn't occur to me to respond to you for the fourth (read: 4th) time just to explain the exact same thing... the only absurd part is that you have already explained multiple times what I meant up there, yet you constantly interrogate me about the exact same thing... I can't help you if you can't understand after hearing the exact same thing several times, so stop trying to make someone else look like a fool!

explain myself because he—either accidentally or intentionally—misinterprets me due to his own false assumptions and prejudices, effectively putting words in my mouth that I never intended or wrote, and then demands an explanation for those fabricated words, once again, 4 times??? And then comes

😂

Let’s breathe some life back into this thread, seeing as it hasn't been particularly "active" lately. 😁I want anyone who might run into similar issues down the road—because let's face it, once people get set in their ways and dig their heels in, they rarely budge—to realize they aren't alone. I want them to see there were others before them who refused to turn a blind eye to the nonsense and the blatant unfairness coming from the Religion moderators—specifically rowdyhawk10!

My "subversive" deleted post:

And here are my formal complaints in the complaint book pdf religion where everything is laid out in detail:


If that individual happens to resurface with one of those predictably nonsensical, trolling posts designed purely to deceive... well, don't let it distract you too much.

Regards... enjoy yourselves. 😉

Since you clearly lack the integrity to close this thread as I requested—likely because you realize I am right and have nothing left to say—I will simply outline one more absurdity from this endless list. This post exposes the very heart of the problem. I won't be engaging further after this; it is patently useless. Go ahead and issue a ban or delete my posts if it makes you feel better, but leave this specific entry intact so people can actually read it and see what is happening here. This is the crux of the matter.

This is a follow-up regarding the most recent complaints concerning the Religion section...

Just take a look at what the moderator rowdyhawk10 is writing and the perspective he holds... He essentially claims and believes that Christianity and Christians do not exist. He maintains that everyone who today calls themselves a Christian (meaning anyone who views Christ as their teacher and believes in him, regardless of whether they belong to an organized institution or not) does not exist as a believer. He denies the label and denies these people their status as believers, implying they are merely superstitious, fabricated quasi-believers whom he wipes from existence as if they were mere dust. Furthermore, he suggests that those who truly follow Jesus's teachings are found exclusively among Muslims and Jews! He doesn't use those exact words, of course, as he lacks the courage to state them so bluntly, but reading between the lines, there is no other conclusion to draw.

Now, he is entitled to his opinion. Personally, I find it completely delusional and misguided, but he has the right to hold it, and he is free to spread it. However, one cannot hold a moderator position while harboring such extreme views and stances; he simply cannot remain impartial or objective, he cannot... and his moderation style proves it. Here is an example of the very issue I mentioned above, for which you have offered no response, choosing instead to maintain this silence!

To put it plainly: for him, Christians—by that name and by their faith in God—do not exist. In his view, all who claim the title are just superstitious. He might mask his language, but that is exactly what he means. It is an incredible level of extremism and absurdity, though I suppose it is perfectly "legal" and "legitimate" within this framework... But now, explain to me: how can a man with such radical views possibly serve as an objective, unbiased moderator? If his actions didn't prove otherwise, one might even think it was possible, but in numerous instances, he uses his moderation to push his extreme and fanatical agenda. Having a moderator like this in the Religion section is unprecedented!

It would be like if I walked onto a forum with a Mexican domain, where the majority of users are presumably Mexican, a community meant to be free, tolerant, and open to everyone. Suppose I am a moderator and I start posting nonsense claiming that Mexicans as a people don't actually exist, that it's an invented term, and that these people don't even correctly believe in Mexico as their homeland (don't nitpick my wording for relevance, as we aren't on a dedicated Mexican forum, but you get the point). My case is even more egregious because, to me, faith precedes nationality... yet I would be acting as a moderator, supposedly managing the forum impartially and honestly. How is that even possible?

How is any kind of normal dialogue, debate, or cooperation possible with such a person? He explicitly tells me that I do not exist as a believer, that my faith and the name of that faith are fabrications that have nothing to do with Jesus... And yet, a man with such extreme, delusional views is allowed to distribute injustice here. He doesn't just moderate; he acts like a tyrant, the "first among equals" on the complaint book PDF. He manages most of the content, hovering over me, while I sit here waiting for him to strike with a ban whenever a post doesn't suit his whims, all while people similar to him are largely tolerated!

Do you understand the sheer circus and absurdity of this situation? I can barely wrap my head around it myself... 😂 and there is no way I will continue to participate in this as long as a man with such views and such...The way things are written and moderated here dictates what qualifies as acceptable content, what earns a ban, and what gets scrubbed entirely. There is this constant, looming threat of censorship hanging over everything. I find myself having to weigh every single word just to ensure I don't offend the great rowdyhawk10... No, I’m done with the theories! Peace out, everyone. 🙂

So, is anyone from the administration actually going to step up and address this issue? Are all these complaints regarding the moderators on this forum either completely justified or just being tossed out the window? Is there truly no desire or will here to correct mistakes, or even to attempt establishing a sense of fairness and justice where possible?

I suppose you don't care; matters like this are beneath your notice, aren't they?

Go ahead and leave the miserable people to their fate... you can just close this thread!

Regards

rowdyhawk10 said:WE
1. In my opinion, none of the posts you think deserve a strike actually warrant one. Perhaps some of the other moderators might feel differently, but those posts weren't even reported (using the red triangle icon) like I suggested they should be.

2. I wasn't psychoanalyzing Jacob. Especially not with phrases like "you're writing nonsense because...". On the contrary, I had a pleasant dialogue with him, both of us showing mutual respect. Furthermore, Jacob hasn't expressed any grievance about being psychoanalyzed. Quite the opposite, I suspect he doesn't hold any resentment toward me and finds me to be a decent interlocutor... which seems evident from his replies to me. He is welcome to chime in here if he feels otherwise.

3. Regarding the rest of the accusations in the opening post (concerning your strike), I responded to you first via private message, and subsequently within the complaint book thread. Best,

Of course they don't merit a strike "in your opinion," because your opinion is biased, subjective, misleading, and so blatantly transparent that it’s almost impressive!

Regarding using the red triangle icon to report—I am not here to play snitch or file endless reports; I am here to point out the injustice and the sheer perfidy you employ in your moderation toward anyone who disagrees with you or anyone you deem "unfit"... but regardless, I sent you a private message after issuing my strike to point out those other posts that actually deserve sanctions and to notify you of them. I believe the red triangle is meant to ensure moderators are notified... which means you were notified. Whether it was via the icon or a direct DM is secondary... if you had any shred of integrity and weren't so busy being stubborn, you would simply do your job properly. But that isn't your goal, is it? You are driven by your own subjective and, frankly, repulsive motives—silencing and attempting to censor anyone you perceive as a threat, people who actually beat you in arguments with logic, leaving you with nothing to do but lash out with dishonest strikes!

Your actions are shameful and pathetic!

rowdyhawk10 said:WE
1. In my opinion, none of the posts you think deserve a strike actually warrant one. Perhaps some of the other moderators might feel differently, but those posts weren't even reported (using the red triangle icon) like I suggested they should be.

2. I wasn't psychoanalyzing Jacob. Especially not with phrases like "you're writing nonsense because...". On the contrary, I had a pleasant dialogue with him, both of us showing mutual respect. Furthermore, Jacob hasn't expressed any grievance about being psychoanalyzed. Quite the opposite, I suspect he doesn't hold any resentment toward me and finds me to be a decent interlocutor... which seems evident from his replies to me. He is welcome to chime in here if he feels otherwise.

3. Regarding the rest of the accusations in the opening post (concerning your strike), I responded to you first via private message, and subsequently within the complaint book thread. Best,

2. Oh, give me a break. You weren't psychoanalyzing Jacob?? Well, I didn't expect you to admit it! Just as I claim I wasn't psychoanalyzing him, that doesn't stop you from arbitrarily and shamelessly interpreting the posts of your "dangerous" dissenters! However, if we look at the facts and the criteria that should be applied equally and consistently to everyone... if my comments were psychoanalysis, then yours were 100% as well!

I explained this earlier; these were your own words: "But it's awkward when you dismiss something in advance." If we are using that as our criterion for psychoanalysis?? You are telling him that what he is doing is "awkward" without even knowing if he is actually doing it or not... any honest, objective person with a modicum of common sense can see through that! That post alone deserves a sanction, yet where are the others on that thread who haven't been penalized, despite you being notified by an honest moderator—whether via the triangle or a direct DM!??

The fact that you fail to act or recognize when Jacob violates the forum rules, even after you were notified, proves that you lack the capacity to objectively and fairly discern who truly deserves consequences for their posts!

If someone voices their frustration, you're supposed to act—not just sit there playing the part of the impartial, honest moderator while pretending otherwise. But instead, we see this sudden rush to show approval, which only started after I issued my warning, an action that Jacob was clearly thrilled about. You both seem quite happy to pat each other on the back; he enjoys your blatant bias, and you enjoy refusing to hand him the warnings he rightfully earned under any fair set of rules. Look, man, I’m not blind. Let's stop playing games and pretending we don't know what's happening here. Enough is enough.

rowdyhawk10 said:WE
1. In my opinion, none of the posts you think deserve a strike actually warrant one. Perhaps some of the other moderators might feel differently, but those posts weren't even reported (using the red triangle icon) like I suggested they should be.

2. I wasn't psychoanalyzing Jacob. Especially not with phrases like "you're writing nonsense because...". On the contrary, I had a pleasant dialogue with him, both of us showing mutual respect. Furthermore, Jacob hasn't expressed any grievance about being psychoanalyzed. Quite the opposite, I suspect he doesn't hold any resentment toward me and finds me to be a decent interlocutor... which seems evident from his replies to me. He is welcome to chime in here if he feels otherwise.

3. Regarding the rest of the accusations in the opening post (concerning your strike), I responded to you first via private message, and subsequently within the complaint book thread. Best,

3. Your responses have been nothing but lies, distortions, and smoke and mirrors. In this specific instance, it is painfully obvious that you are biased and dishonest, relying on manipulation and planted evidence. Any decent person who takes a moment to look into this case will see exactly who is who in this story.

rowdyhawk10, there is no point in trying to debate you or resolve this reasonably because you are completely deaf to any criticism regarding your moderation. Frankly, your management is an absolute disaster. Your motives are common knowledge by now, and most of the users in the Religion section, along with several of your fellow moderators, agree with me. Yet, you still cling desperately to lies, fabrications, and constant twisting of the truth. It's truly pathetic.

That is why I ask, supermods, admins, or anyone actually competent in these matters, to step in and deal with the rowdyhawk10 situation. This moderator's reign of terror has crossed a line... this has been going on since May of this year, for heaven's sake. You are far too late.

Regards,

I would have preferred to file this complaint strictly within the specific thread dedicated to warnings, but since I am required to provide supporting examples of other posts that logically warrant similar disciplinary action under the same reasoning, I felt compelled to open a new thread entirely. It is important that we adhere strictly to the forum rules and maintain proper procedure.

It seems to me that moderator rowdyhawk10 is losing his grip on things again. It’s glaringly obvious that he’s being driven by outside influences in his moderation decisions, as he fails to realize that for whatever reason he decided to issue me a warning, he could have easily handed out several more to others in that same thread—including himself. But no, apparently all it took were two specific words from my post for him to interpret it as "diving into" psychoanalysis, while several sentences in other posts go completely unpunished. Is consistency such a foreign concept?

First, let me present my post—one that honestly deserves a red card because of this amateurish attempt at "psychoanalysis." I have been following this thread for some time now, and I find myself increasingly skeptical of the direction this conversation is taking. Is it truly possible that we are all overlooking the most obvious conclusion simply because it doesn't fit our preconceived notions of how society should function? It seems to me that many participants here are operating under the assumption that truth is a matter of consensus rather than objective reality. But isn't that the fundamental flaw in modern discourse? We seek validation from our peers instead of seeking the facts themselves. I noticed what @rowdyhawk10 mentioned earlier regarding the influence of certain historical narratives. It brings up an interesting point: how much of what we consider "common sense" is actually just a carefully curated set of ideas handed down through generations? If we don't question the origin of these ideas, are we even thinking for ourselves, or are we merely echoing the sentiments of those who came before us? Furthermore, looking at the arguments presented by Peter Stewart6, one has to wonder if we are even speaking the same language anymore. There is a profound disconnect between the analytical approach and the purely emotional reactions being thrown around. Can a meaningful debate ever occur when one side refuses to acknowledge the premises of the other? Ultimately, I suspect we are all just circling the drain of our own biases. Perhaps it is time to step back and ask: if we stripped away all our cultural conditioning and social pressures, what would actually remain of our convictions? Or would we find that they were nothing more than shadows cast by others?

Evo post I have been following this thread for some time now, and I find myself increasingly weary of the repetitive nature of these arguments. Is it truly necessary to circle back to the same tired grievances every single time a new topic arises? It seems we are trapped in a cycle where the same voices shout the same slogans, hoping for a different result, yet achieving nothing but further fragmentation. One cannot help but notice how certain individuals, like ruggedeagle10, seem to take a peculiar pleasure in dredging up old debates that have long since lost their relevance. Does anyone actually believe that revisiting these historical grievances will somehow reshape our current reality? Or is it merely a way to pass the time while feeling morally superior to one's neighbor? It strikes me as profoundly cynical to watch people weaponize identity and belief systems just to score points in a digital arena. We see it constantly—people using religion as a shield or a sword, rather than a source of genuine reflection. When did we decide that being right was more important than being reasonable? I look at the way discussions unfold here, and I am reminded of the chaos one might find in the most unregulated corners of the Wild West. There is a lack of discipline, a refusal to adhere to any semblance of decorum, and a desperate need for attention that borders on the pathological. If we cannot maintain even a basic level of civility, what hope is there for meaningful discourse? Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves: are we participating in a conversation, or are we simply performing for an audience of our own making? If the goal is understanding, then the current trajectory is a failure. If the goal is merely to vent frustration, then I suppose we are all succeeding quite brilliantly. To ensure you don't get lost in the trolling or the psychoanalysis—which I’ve tucked at the end of this post—I wanted to address the fact that yet another forum member has been allowed to engage in a debate without facing any sanctions. It seems my simple response, consisting of little more than two words—"YOU DON'T WANT TO"—was somehow interpreted as an invitation to dive into deep psychoanalysis. But apparently, our friend rowdyhawk10 is missing the point entirely. And, of course, here is one more post for the record. I find myself wondering if we have truly grasped the gravity of what is being discussed here. Is it possible that we are all simply drifting through these debates without a compass? It seems to me that when we discuss matters of faith and the fundamental structures of our society, we often lose sight of the underlying tensions that define us. We speak of things like the relationship between organized religion and the individual, yet how many of us actually stop to consider the weight of those traditions on the modern American psyche? We argue over interpretations of Christ's teachings or the nuances of Judaism, but are we really seeking truth, or are we just looking for a way to validate our own existing biases? It feels as though we are circling the same drain, repeating the same tired arguments about the role of the church in a secularized nation. Does anyone actually believe that these ancient frameworks can seamlessly integrate with the rapid, often chaotic evolution of American life? Or are we merely clinging to the wreckage of old certainties because the alternative—a world without these traditional anchors—is too daunting to contemplate? One has to ask: are we debating ideas, or are we merely defending our own sense of identity? It’s the same issue all over again, yet somehow, there are still no sanctions in place. Why does this pattern continue to repeat itself without any real consequences?

Here is one post from before I enrolled. I find myself returning to this particular thread, wondering if we ever truly progress or if we are simply circling the same drain of human error. Looking back at the arguments presented here, one has to ask: are we actually engaging in a meaningful dialogue, or are we just shouting into an endless void of ego and misplaced certainty? It seems that whenever we attempt to peel back the layers of these complex social and spiritual tensions, we inevitably stumble into the same old pitfalls. We dissect everything—religion, history, politics—as if having more information somehow grants us more wisdom. But does it? Or does it just provide us with sharper weapons to use against one another? There is a certain weariness that sets in when you realize how repetitive these cycles are. We argue about the same fundamental truths, using different labels, yet arriving at the same exhausted conclusions. Is there any real substance left in these debates, or have we reached a point where we are merely performing for an audience of our own making? It feels less like a search for truth and more like a desperate attempt to be "right" in a world that stopped caring about being right a long time ago. (Everything on the same topic) Who was handed nothing more than a yellow card as a warning for trolling far more aggressively than I did? This serves merely as an example of the inconsistent criteria at play. I opened this entire thread to highlight the lack of clarity regarding why someone receives a yellow card for an obvious violation while another person gets a red card for something trivial.

And here is yet another post from rowdyhawk10 on this same topic. I find myself once again staring at the endless cycle of debate on these boards, wondering if we ever actually progress or if we are simply circling the drain of our own biases. Is there any real substance left in these discussions, or have we all just become experts at shouting into the void? Looking back at what was said previously, it seems we are stuck in the same repetitive loop. Why does it feel like every argument eventually devolves into the same tired tropes? We pretend to seek truth, yet we cling to our preconceived notions like lifelines in a storm. It’s a wearying spectacle to witness. One has to wonder: at what point does the noise become too much to bear? Are we seeking understanding, or are we merely looking for validation of our own narrow perspectives? It feels as though the more we talk, the less we actually communicate. It’s a profound irony, isn't it? To be so connected and yet so fundamentally isolated in our thoughts.

So, you’re sitting here telling rowdyhawk10 that he's "preemptively rejecting" something, but how can you possibly claim to know his internal state? You don't actually know if he's rejecting it or not. You're essentially performing psychoanalysis on him, using far more words than I did when I simply stated "HE DOESN'T WANT TO" in my post. Furthermore, you aren't issuing yourself a warning from the complaint book like you so readily do to everyone else... how exactly does that logic work? Could someone please explain that to me?

Since you aren't permitted to issue yourself a penalty, why didn't you reach out to an administrator to have one applied following that little psychoanalysis session you conducted? If the rules of this forum are truly sacred to you—if everything must be executed with such meticulous precision—then why the oversight, @rowdyhawk10? Where did this lapse in judgment come from?

Here is my formal complaint regarding the top thread on religion. I find myself returning to this particular thread quite often, mostly because the level of discourse here seems to fluctuate between profound insight and absolute nonsense. It makes one wonder: at what point did we lose the ability to engage in a coherent debate without immediately resorting to insults? Looking back at what was said, I can't help but feel a sense of weary cynicism. We see the same patterns repeating themselves—the same arguments, the same biases, and the same refusal to acknowledge any perspective that doesn't align with one's own preconceived notions. Is it even possible to have a productive conversation anymore, or are we all just shouting into a void, hoping our echo sounds more authoritative than it actually is? It’s a strange phenomenon, isn't it? We have access to more information than any generation in history, yet somehow, the quality of our reasoning seems to be in steady decline. We cling to our little ideological bubbles like they are fortresses, terrified that a single challenging question might bring the whole structure crumbling down. I suppose that's just the nature of things now. People prefer the comfort of a familiar lie over the discomfort of an inconvenient truth. One has to ask oneself: if we cannot agree on basic facts, how can we ever hope to navigate the complexities of the world around us? It feels as though we are merely circling the drain, waiting for the inevitable moment when the pretense of civility finally gives way to total chaos. And this is Eminem's response. I have been reflecting on the nature of faith and how people tend to weaponize their beliefs when they feel cornered. It seems that whenever a discussion touches upon the core tenets of a specific religion, the conversation immediately devolves from intellectual inquiry into a defensive skirmish. Is it possible that we have lost the ability to discuss the divine without making it an indictment of our own character? Take, for instance, the way certain individuals react when someone dares to question the historical or logical foundations of their creed. Instead of engaging with the argument, they retreat into a shell of moral superiority. They act as if questioning a doctrine is synonymous with attacking the person holding it. Isn't that a bit much? It’s a tired tactic—relying on the sanctity of the subject matter to shield oneself from legitimate scrutiny. We see this pattern repeated constantly. One person poses a question, and before they can even finish their thought, they are met with accusations of being an atheist or lacking respect. Why must everything be framed as a battle between the righteous and the godless? Can we not simply sit at a table and weigh ideas against one another without someone feeling the need to reach for a metaphorical pitchfork? It brings to mind the old saying about how people behave when they are out of their depth. When the logic fails, the emotion takes over. And once the emotion is in the driver's seat, the actual truth becomes secondary to the preservation of one's ego. We aren't just discussing theology here; we are observing a fundamental flaw in how modern Americans approach disagreement. If we cannot handle a difference of opinion regarding Jesus or any other figure of worship without turning it into a personal crusade, then perhaps we aren't actually seeking truth at all. Perhaps we are just seeking validation.

If expressing my opinion—which is a right I fully intend to exercise—is suddenly labeled as "writing nonsense," then we have a serious issue here. If I provide a logical explanation to back up my stance and that is dismissed as trolling or a violation of the forum rules, then you might as well just ban the entire complaint book PDF or shut down this whole forum immediately. Why? Because, in my view, absolutely everyone else has used those exact same tactics without facing a single consequence. It seems the rules are applied selectively, which is nothing short of hypocritical. So, let's get to the heart of the matter: if the only thing "wrong" with my post was the two-word phrase "you don't want," then why am I the one being handed a red card?

So, here we have yet another glimpse into the flawless state of integrity, consistency, and justice governing the religion complaint book whenever our moderator, rowdyhawk10, decides to get to work. Just take a look at this. Tell me, rowdyhawk10, how exactly do you explain these phenomena occurring under your supposedly perfect moderation of the religion complaint book?

We are all intimately familiar with rowdyhawk10's blatant intolerance toward Christianity—anyone who has ever had the misfortune of witnessing his behavior can attest to it. I am standing here today to accuse him directly, just as I and many others have done on numerous occasions before, that this specific bias is the root cause behind much of his catastrophic moderation. Is it not obvious? Is it not the most logical explanation for such glaring unprofessionalism and blatant partiality in how he manages this space? I challenge you to try and talk me out of this conclusion. Go ahead—try to provide any other reasonable explanation for such an evident lack of objectivity in his moderation!

Greetings,

rowdyhawk10, I don't even have the energy to go through every single one of your absurd statements posted here just to debunk them—not that it would matter to you, given how blinded you are.

I’ve just witnessed your latest crusade against anyone who disagrees with you regarding Religion, and frankly, it serves as total validation for my original point. You might insist this thread is nothing more than trolling, but that’s clearly just a byproduct of your own fanaticism.

You're the one actually trolling here...whether it's in this discussion or across numerous other threads about Religion. If you truly believe I'm wrong... by all means, go ahead. On the very first page of this thread alone, there are three lengthy posts directed at you for good reason. I've provided plenty of links that prove my case. Why don't you study them, formulate a defense, and try to talk sense into us? If you actually succeed, I have an endless supply of links documenting your lack of objectivity, your unfairness, your blatant bias, your censorship, and the sheer contempt you show toward Christians in the first place. So, please, be my guest... start. Proving this thread is "trolling" by simply labeling it as such doesn't prove anything; it just proves you're doubling down on empty, hollow methods of deception. Therefore... show me and prove it. Prove I'm wrong by using actual arguments to dismantle my points one by one. If you can't do that—or if you refuse because you know I'm right and you don't want to expose yourself yet again—then for once in your life, do something decent and human: shut up. Stop this Jihad you're waging here, which you are destined to lose, and stop the trolling. Is that clear enough for you?

I'll leave you with this one thought... you have serious issues, my friend, truly serious... 😢

Good grief, you really are an exhausting person. Tell me, how exactly does this work for you? Come on, walk me through it—how do you actually enjoy being like this? 😢

Just look at the sheer volume of people messaging you and what they’re actually saying. There are dozens of links and quotes out there that validate every single point I made in that lengthy breakdown where I laid everything out—a situation that, I might add, over 80% of people here actually agree with. What exactly is it that you're failing to grasp? If it's truly that elusive, please, let me know; I'm more than happy to walk you through it again. What part of this is still unclear to you?

Are you looking for proof? Well, here it is. I’ve included a link to my writing where I lay out exactly how people claim Christians are mentally unstable simply because of their faith—and how they argue that those who wear a cross are actually fueling political agendas rooted in oppression and cruelty. Now, I ask you: can someone with that specific mindset truly be an objective, unbiased, or fair moderator? What more evidence do you need? Seriously, what? It’s honestly just pathetic. Slow. i Pitiful. If you actually possess even a shred of common sense, then that should be more than enough for you.

rowdyhawk10 said:I believe the situation has been described with surgical precision. For instance, I am here again, and once more here I have posed the question of providing just one single argument regarding this supposed threat. I still haven't received one. Therefore, it seems quite clear that the issue lies solely in the fact that all forum members (which certainly includes Christians) need to get used to differing opinions, maintain their dignity, and respect interlocutors who think differently. If a topic is sensitive, one should defend their own positions through a civilized approach and sufficient arguments, without resorting to personal motives, "suspicious intentions", or other levels of psychological profiling of an opponent who holds a different view. That has been a very frequent occurrence so far: "We know what you're up to...!!!" — and then they lash out personally. And when we don't do that, it turns out we are somehow threatening someone.

This is a relativistic way of writing, where nothing concrete is actually stated or proven. I am asking you to provide one specific and clear example. Just one single example of your being threatened. Is anyone here preventing you from expressing your beliefs and life stances in complete freedom? I expect an honest answer.

What trolling is, is defined in the Reddit rules and the rules of the Religion sub-forum.

Your post is trolling. A man with over 3,000 posts who has been on the Religion sub-forum for a very long time and knows things here quite well has expressed his opinion on the current state of affairs. He didn't call anyone a provocateur, he didn't call anyone out by name, nor did he launch a personal attack against anyone. Yet you, in replying to him, begin right from the start like this:"Look, you're just being a troll and a provocateur..."

You spend time describing Tyndall and pointing out which group he belongs to, essentially trying to disqualify him beforehand as someone biased or unfair.

Or consider when someone starts a somewhat sensitive thread regarding Christianity (where they present a viewpoint that contradicts official Church teaching) and then someone jumps in with a comment like: "Listen, you troll and provocateur acting on religion, you're one of those..." Or perhaps: "We all know who you are and what kind of person you are (insert various insults here)", "we know people like you; you're part of that (this or that) crowd".

For those who haven't been following closely: this isn't some massive wave of complaints. It involves far too few people to be making such a huge scene about it. At the same time, I'd ask everyone currently protesting—and anyone who has ever protested over anything—to move toward actual, concrete action. Everything can be fixed if there is genuine will. Perhaps, out of respect for our time, it would be better to simply send moderators direct messages without getting bogged down in endless details or tiny specifics to point out a particular issue. For instance, mention if someone is constantly breaking the rules, or if there's an issue with a specific thread. That way, things could be resolved much more efficiently as they happen. Best regards.

Of course he didn't name anyone specifically as a provocateur... but who else would he name? Me? Am I some kind of provocateur? I called him out by name because that is exactly what he is. Do you really need proof?

Do you see my previous posts above where I stated that... I have no desire for this. Let’s be clear: this thread isn't intended for debate, and frankly, it's not even a space for you to occupy. So, what exactly is your objective here? You show up uninvited, spouting nothing but deceptive nonsense when nobody ever reached out to ask for your opinion or requested your input. What else would you call that if not blatant trolling?

What exactly was that individual doing—the one I would unhesitatingly label a troll and a provocateur? He was trolling just as relentlessly as you were, jumping in to stir the pot immediately after my very first posts. So, you’re looking for proof? You really think a simple demonstration or a collection of facts is enough to satisfy the hunger for certainty? It’s an interesting request, though perhaps a bit naive. In a world where everyone claims to hold the absolute truth, what does "proof" actually mean to you? Is it something tangible you can hold in your hands, or is it just a concept we cling to when we feel the ground shifting beneath our feet? I wonder if anyone truly ever finds what they are searching for, or if we are all just chasing shadows in the dark.?

Exactly. I’m just describing Tyndall exactly as he is. Have I perhaps misrepresented anything?

I didn't disqualify him... he disqualified himself. He proved his own bias and unfairness by how he chose to handle me. To mine. This thread deserves a formal warning. As for everyone else—including my friend Nicole James, who keeps posting things like, "Another thread about me... oh, how wonderful am I?"—what exactly is that supposed to be? It’s blatant trolling, plain and simple. And then there’s you, popping up here when nobody asked for your opinion, trolling just like you do in so many other threads regarding Religion... even though the rules clearly state that... There is no debate to be had.)

So, he’s handing me a ban, but for what, exactly? I am still sitting here, searching and waiting for a specific, concrete answer as to what was actually wrong with that post. Which exact words? Which specific sentence triggered this? Was it just trolling? I am asking for a real explanation.

This attempt of yours to disqualify me by claiming that I am trying to disqualify someone else simply doesn't hold water, because... 😉 Because the Lord did it for my own sake—just as you do it for yours! 🙂

Do you understand? If you don't, then what else am I supposed to say to you? There isn't much more help I can offer, because you are simply blind, my dear @shady. You're blind because you're being led by darkness and a desperate craving for deception.Does one truly require concrete proof? Or is the weight of intuition and lived experience enough to settle the matter????

rowdyhawk10 said:I believe the situation has been described with surgical precision. For instance, I am here again, and once more here I have posed the question of providing just one single argument regarding this supposed threat. I still haven't received one. Therefore, it seems quite clear that the issue lies solely in the fact that all forum members (which certainly includes Christians) need to get used to differing opinions, maintain their dignity, and respect interlocutors who think differently. If a topic is sensitive, one should defend their own positions through a civilized approach and sufficient arguments, without resorting to personal motives, "suspicious intentions", or other levels of psychological profiling of an opponent who holds a different view. That has been a very frequent occurrence so far: "We know what you're up to...!!!" — and then they lash out personally. And when we don't do that, it turns out we are somehow threatening someone.

This is a relativistic way of writing, where nothing concrete is actually stated or proven. I am asking you to provide one specific and clear example. Just one single example of your being threatened. Is anyone here preventing you from expressing your beliefs and life stances in complete freedom? I expect an honest answer.

What trolling is, is defined in the Reddit rules and the rules of the Religion sub-forum.

Your post is trolling. A man with over 3,000 posts who has been on the Religion sub-forum for a very long time and knows things here quite well has expressed his opinion on the current state of affairs. He didn't call anyone a provocateur, he didn't call anyone out by name, nor did he launch a personal attack against anyone. Yet you, in replying to him, begin right from the start like this:"Look, you're just being a troll and a provocateur..."

You spend time describing Tyndall and pointing out which group he belongs to, essentially trying to disqualify him beforehand as someone biased or unfair.

Or consider when someone starts a somewhat sensitive thread regarding Christianity (where they present a viewpoint that contradicts official Church teaching) and then someone jumps in with a comment like: "Listen, you troll and provocateur acting on religion, you're one of those..." Or perhaps: "We all know who you are and what kind of person you are (insert various insults here)", "we know people like you; you're part of that (this or that) crowd".

For those who haven't been following closely: this isn't some massive wave of complaints. It involves far too few people to be making such a huge scene about it. At the same time, I'd ask everyone currently protesting—and anyone who has ever protested over anything—to move toward actual, concrete action. Everything can be fixed if there is genuine will. Perhaps, out of respect for our time, it would be better to simply send moderators direct messages without getting bogged down in endless details or tiny specifics to point out a particular issue. For instance, mention if someone is constantly breaking the rules, or if there's an issue with a specific thread. That way, things could be resolved much more efficiently as they happen. Best regards.

😂
What a pathetic, insidious, and downright rude lie... just one of many you use to bluff and deceive those who aren't sufficiently well-versed in the situation. But many of us are quite familiar with you, rowdyhawk10, and both you and your meager, pitiful methods have been thoroughly exposed!

Just look at the SurveyMonkey results; that is merely a minority, yet it serves as a perfect mirror of public opinion. 🙂 Go ahead, point to any single post of mine from any of my threads that would disqualify me or suggest that everything I write here isn't the Truth... just one!

You are nothing more than one person to me, if you can even find such a thing... and for every single one of your claims (though I don't even know which 🙂 ), I will find three of my own to throw back at you. Three! Three posts that confirm your bias, your lack of objectivity, and your hostility and disgust toward a certain "group" of people... thereby proving once and for all that you are a liar and a deceiver!

Go on then, try to dig them up... 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:I believe the situation has been described with surgical precision. For instance, I am here again, and once more here I have posed the question of providing just one single argument regarding this supposed threat. I still haven't received one. Therefore, it seems quite clear that the issue lies solely in the fact that all forum members (which certainly includes Christians) need to get used to differing opinions, maintain their dignity, and respect interlocutors who think differently. If a topic is sensitive, one should defend their own positions through a civilized approach and sufficient arguments, without resorting to personal motives, "suspicious intentions", or other levels of psychological profiling of an opponent who holds a different view. That has been a very frequent occurrence so far: "We know what you're up to...!!!" — and then they lash out personally. And when we don't do that, it turns out we are somehow threatening someone.

This is a relativistic way of writing, where nothing concrete is actually stated or proven. I am asking you to provide one specific and clear example. Just one single example of your being threatened. Is anyone here preventing you from expressing your beliefs and life stances in complete freedom? I expect an honest answer.

What trolling is, is defined in the Reddit rules and the rules of the Religion sub-forum.

Your post is trolling. A man with over 3,000 posts who has been on the Religion sub-forum for a very long time and knows things here quite well has expressed his opinion on the current state of affairs. He didn't call anyone a provocateur, he didn't call anyone out by name, nor did he launch a personal attack against anyone. Yet you, in replying to him, begin right from the start like this:"Look, you're just being a troll and a provocateur..."

You spend time describing Tyndall and pointing out which group he belongs to, essentially trying to disqualify him beforehand as someone biased or unfair.

Or consider when someone starts a somewhat sensitive thread regarding Christianity (where they present a viewpoint that contradicts official Church teaching) and then someone jumps in with a comment like: "Listen, you troll and provocateur acting on religion, you're one of those..." Or perhaps: "We all know who you are and what kind of person you are (insert various insults here)", "we know people like you; you're part of that (this or that) crowd".

For those who haven't been following closely: this isn't some massive wave of complaints. It involves far too few people to be making such a huge scene about it. At the same time, I'd ask everyone currently protesting—and anyone who has ever protested over anything—to move toward actual, concrete action. Everything can be fixed if there is genuine will. Perhaps, out of respect for our time, it would be better to simply send moderators direct messages without getting bogged down in endless details or tiny specifics to point out a particular issue. For instance, mention if someone is constantly breaking the rules, or if there's an issue with a specific thread. That way, things could be resolved much more efficiently as they happen. Best regards.

Your deceptions won't fly anymore; everything is clear now. People aren't blind, rowdyhawk10. Please, stop embarrassing yourself... I am writing this because of you!

Fine, if you want peace of mind and to settle your conscience, I will withdraw and I won't write on this Reddit anymore... truly, I won't be here. Just leave people alone so they can write and enjoy themselves, and step down from being a moderator. Relinquish a role that you are clearly incapable of performing fairly and justly given your current state of mind. It's obvious: you are obsessed and blinded, rowdyhawk10, and this is pointless! Leave people alone!

I've already lost the will to write here because of this sickness you've created, and there's no sense in participating anymore. Let's end this now without any lingering issues... you step down from moderation and leave people in peace, and I will depart. Does that work for you?

I would like the moderator of this PDF, Mr. Tyndall—who, by the way, is a member of the "DIO" association and is quite closely linked to > and his crew—to please state, clearly and specifically, what exactly constitutes trolling in my previous post

Which comment in that thread actually falls outside the scope of my specific self-initiated topic? If I am the one who started this discussion, shouldn't I be the one to determine its intended direction and define what might actually qualify as trolling within it? What kind of circus is this? 😂

Christian Torres3 said:The moderation on the Religion PDF isn't perfect. I've even taken a couple of bans myself for reasons I think were pretty flimsy, but looking at the current protests, this is a very accurate description of the situation.

Listen, you troll and provocateur lurking around the Religion section—you're exactly one of those types I mentioned earlier, the kind I’d personally see fit to deal with via an immediate, permanent ban so you could never touch that PDF again!

If the moderation on the PDF was truly "not ideal," as you claim, "not ideal" I would be the first person demanding ten gold medals for that PDF, its moderators, and this entire forum, nominating us as the premier medium for exchanging ideas. In fact, I’d demand that our two famous, legendary moderators be given total autonomy over the entire site, not just the Religion section, because they manage one of the most challenging PDFs with such ease and success that they might as well be declared life-long admins and untouchable kings of this forum!

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only are you trolling and stirring up trouble in the Religion section, but you actually have the audacity to be the first one to jump on this thread—again—after I have stated more times than I can count that I DO NOT WANT any debates, especially not the kind filled with your fake, deceptive, and trolling statements!

I've had enough of this nonsense. I responded once to rowdyhawk10's post, and that was that!

THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO DEBATE ON THIS THREAD. ALL I WANT IS FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE IN THE SURVEYMONKEY POLL AND THEN HAVE THE AUTHORITIES TAKE ACTION... PERIOD. FULL STOP.

ADMINS, SORT THIS OUT!