Mod Shady is at it again

ruggedeagle10 said: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! 😍 😢

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

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!

ruggedeagle10 said: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.

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??

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!

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. 🤷

ruggedeagle10 said: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.

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??

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!

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

ruggedeagle10 said: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.

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??

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!

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, 🙂

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: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 wouldn't want to butt into your discussion, but I feel like responding here. Regardless of the cross,
it seems like you don't quite grasp what the Cross actually means. What was the Cross in Jesus's life
here in America? What is the Cross in any person's life? I can agree with you and
say that it can be a sort of guillotine—perhaps a spiritual guillotine for a person's heart
(their inner self). In Jesus's life, it was a crucified and pierced love,
piercing His heart (His inner self) and His body. In a person's life, the Cross is that crucified
and pierced love that person offers, doing everything out of love for their neighbors, their
households, close and distant family, friends, and even strangers, simply doing
good because their heart (inner self) is turned toward goodness; they love them.
Expecting nothing in return. Even those who aren't believers, who haven't
met God yet, can do this. And after being burned by various people they helped unknowingly,
they end up trampled, alone, abandoned, and exhausted. It is then that many encounter God through the Cross.
Only then do they realize that someone went before them—Jesus. Only then do many face Him, matching their own suffering and pain with His. That’s when they find the strength to keep going. That is rowdyhawk10's cross.

Oh, right, sorry—you're quoting that same point again which caused another user (FlashG) to get a warning previously, which led to you getting 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 a cross, Muslims do, and everyone else does, so you can't just call 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had given FlashG a warning but left you alone, he would have asked: "Why am I the only one getting a warning?!" We have to be fair and treat everyone the same. Even if a Muslim said that anyone preaching love without the crescent and star is Satan, I'd hand them a red card too. Regards. 🙂

Regarding the bolded part: of course, Christians don't have a monopoly on love. It's just that
those who live a crucified love might be the ones who truly understand the concept of love on the Cross.
Yet many people live that way in their lives, across all faiths and religions, and even among those
without faith. As I tried to explain above, Jesus says: "This is my commandment:
love one another as I have loved you! No one has greater love than this:
to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:12-14.

What does it mean to "lay down one's life"? Many veterans laid down their lives in war so we could sit here typing,
not calculating when they fought for the country; they went out of love for their homeland and their people.
Mothers and fathers, for example, lay down their lives for their children, sacrificing themselves and their
many needs for the sake of their kids. Not out of calculation, but out of love. In the old days,
and even now, many live a Cross through the way their children give back to them. What is the comfort for those parents?
What provides comfort to the many parents who have lost their children to war, illness,
or various other tragedies? What truly offers solace to those who suffer? And so many people experience suffering
during certain chapters of their lives.
Human comfort is fleeting, but God's is constant and eternal. People tend to run away from those who are hurting,
so many of them do, but Jesus leans in toward the one who suffers and takes them into His own Hands.
He is the only one who can truly understand. And His Mother.
Who held Him in His Hands? His Mother did, both during His life and when they took Him down
from the Cross. From her, He learned about love from childhood, and He fulfilled and completed that journey on the Cross.

I think what FlashG and ruggedeagle10 were probably trying to say was just clumsily written.
In my opinion, they wanted to point toward the presence of love within the life of the Cross, and
that anyone who rejects the Cross and living in that kind of love—instead preaching some other
version of love—isn't really acting according to God's plan. The ungodly dishonor the Cross. On the Cross,
victory was won through love. And we know what the ungodly stand for; there is no
denial of anything God wants or where He is leading us.

You can see how much people love and who their role models are by the crosses they carry. It’s clear
who stood beneath Jesus's Cross: the Blessed Virgin Mary, John, and Mary Magdalene.
Sinlessness in the form of the Virgin, the priest in the form of the apostle, and the sinfulness washed clean by Blood
of a person in the form of Magdalene. Through experienced and recognized love, in the pain of empathy, they look
at Jesus—crucified without having committed a single sin—at the eyes of those who haven't yet experienced that Love.
That is why He went to the Cross, voluntarily, without calculation, so that many could experience Love and finally truly live.
If people crucified God in the likeness of Jesus and the form of a man, how could they not do the same to a person today?
They realized what they had done afterward; it’s the same way today. Many realize what they’ve done only after a person dies.
Many never realize it here on Earth, and many realize it only to act like Judas once before.
We could talk about this for ages, but here is a brief take on the Cross that causes you such doubt as a Christian.
Everyone carries some kind of suffering in life; no one is an exception, whether rich or poor, believers or
non-believers, religious or non-religious—it all depends on which side of the fence you sit on. It's similar to the two
thieves alongside Jesus on the Cross.
Best.

ruggedeagle10 said: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? 🤷

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.

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.)

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!

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.

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:

FlashG said:Anyone preaching love without the cross is essentially the devil.

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

ruggedeagle10 said:I suppose anyone who preaches love without the cross is just talking nonsense. (victims, suffering, agony, sacrificing oneself for others) = without love, from It’s just Satanism. He’s a liar.

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.

Peter Stewart6 said:I wouldn't want to butt into your discussion, but I feel like responding here. Regardless of the cross,
it seems like you don't quite grasp what the Cross actually means. What was the Cross in Jesus's life
here in America? What is the Cross in any person's life? I can agree with you and
say that it can be a sort of guillotine—perhaps a spiritual guillotine for a person's heart
(their inner self). In Jesus's life, it was a crucified and pierced love,
piercing His heart (His inner self) and His body. In a person's life, the Cross is that crucified
and pierced love that person offers, doing everything out of love for their neighbors, their
households, close and distant family, friends, and even strangers, simply doing
good because their heart (inner self) is turned toward goodness; they love them.
Expecting nothing in return. Even those who aren't believers, who haven't
met God yet, can do this. And after being burned by various people they helped unknowingly,
they end up trampled, alone, abandoned, and exhausted. It is then that many encounter God through the Cross.
Only then do they realize that someone went before them—Jesus. Only then do many face Him, matching their own suffering and pain with His. That’s when they find the strength to keep going. That is rowdyhawk10's cross.

Oh, right, sorry—you're quoting that same point again which caused another user (FlashG) to get a warning previously, which led to you getting 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 a cross, Muslims do, and everyone else does, so you can't just call 4/5 of humanity Satan. If I had given FlashG a warning but left you alone, he would have asked: "Why am I the only one getting a warning?!" We have to be fair and treat everyone the same. Even if a Muslim said that anyone preaching love without the crescent and star is Satan, I'd hand them a red card too. Regards. 🙂

Regarding the bolded part: of course, Christians don't have a monopoly on love. It's just that
those who live a crucified love might be the ones who truly understand the concept of love on the Cross.
Yet many people live that way in their lives, across all faiths and religions, and even among those
without faith. As I tried to explain above, Jesus says: "This is my commandment:
love one another as I have loved you! No one has greater love than this:
to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:12-14.

What does it mean to "lay down one's life"? Many veterans laid down their lives in war so we could sit here typing,
not calculating when they fought for the country; they went out of love for their homeland and their people.
Mothers and fathers, for example, lay down their lives for their children, sacrificing themselves and their
many needs for the sake of their kids. Not out of calculation, but out of love. In the old days,
and even now, many live a Cross through the way their children give back to them. What is the comfort for those parents?
What provides comfort to the many parents who have lost their children to war, illness,
or various other tragedies? What truly offers solace to those who suffer? And so many people experience suffering
during certain chapters of their lives.
Human comfort is fleeting, but God's is constant and eternal. People tend to run away from those who are hurting,
so many of them do, but Jesus leans in toward the one who suffers and takes them into His own Hands.
He is the only one who can truly understand. And His Mother.
Who held Him in His Hands? His Mother did, both during His life and when they took Him down
from the Cross. From her, He learned about love from childhood, and He fulfilled and completed that journey on the Cross.

I think what FlashG and ruggedeagle10 were probably trying to say was just clumsily written.
In my opinion, they wanted to point toward the presence of love within the life of the Cross, and
that anyone who rejects the Cross and living in that kind of love—instead preaching some other
version of love—isn't really acting according to God's plan. The ungodly dishonor the Cross. On the Cross,
victory was won through love. And we know what the ungodly stand for; there is no
denial of anything God wants or where He is leading us.

You can see how much people love and who their role models are by the crosses they carry. It’s clear
who stood beneath Jesus's Cross: the Blessed Virgin Mary, John, and Mary Magdalene.
Sinlessness in the form of the Virgin, the priest in the form of the apostle, and the sinfulness washed clean by Blood
of a person in the form of Magdalene. Through experienced and recognized love, in the pain of empathy, they look
at Jesus—crucified without having committed a single sin—at the eyes of those who haven't yet experienced that Love.
That is why He went to the Cross, voluntarily, without calculation, so that many could experience Love and finally truly live.
If people crucified God in the likeness of Jesus and the form of a man, how could they not do the same to a person today?
They realized what they had done afterward; it’s the same way today. Many realize what they’ve done only after a person dies.
Many never realize it here on Earth, and many realize it only to act like Judas once before.
We could talk about this for ages, but here is a brief take on the Cross that causes you such doubt as a Christian.
Everyone carries some kind of suffering in life; no one is an exception, whether rich or poor, believers or
non-believers, religious or non-religious—it all depends on which side of the fence you sit on. It's similar to the two
thieves alongside Jesus on the Cross.
Best.

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:

FlashG said:Anyone preaching love without the cross is the devil.

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,

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... 😉

ruggedeagle10 said: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.

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?

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.

When exactly was that, and where did I say it? Just give me one quote—just one single quote!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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."

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... 😉

Of course, I have never claimed otherwise. Please, go ahead and provide me with a single quote of mine containing those exact words.
So, you went ahead and backed up what FlashG was saying and voiced your own opinion too. My personal stance. Anyone preaching Love without the cross is essentially preaching Satanism. If you can't see what’s inherently wrong with that statement—which I believe I've detailed in several posts above—then I suppose there isn't much more I can do to help you grasp it, other than offering further explanations. Regards. 🙂

When are you actually going to get back to me about this? It’s been two weeks already and I'm still stuck with this card.

?

Come on, people, let's not be like that; rowdyhawk10 is clearly under a lot of stress right now.

Since I am already here, perhaps I might ask rowdyhawk10: do you truly find anything in this post to be offensive to you?

Brian Mendoza95 said:Come on, people, let's not be like that; rowdyhawk10 is clearly under a lot of stress right now.

Since I am already here, perhaps I might ask rowdyhawk10: do you truly find anything in this post to be offensive to you?

Fair enough. 👍

Brian Mendoza95 said:Come on, people, let's not be like that; rowdyhawk10 is clearly under a lot of stress right now.

Since I am already here, perhaps I might ask rowdyhawk10: do you truly find anything in this post to be offensive to you?

No. It's actually a compliment. 🙂

Hannah Thompson2 said:When are you actually going to get back to me about this? It’s been two weeks already and I'm still stuck with this card.

?

I believe I addressed that in the very posts you quoted from that linked thread.
Unless, of course, there's something else you need clarification on. Best,

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.
Since when does this principle apply to the Religion subforum?? 😕