/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Friend, when your ass is banned, there is no longer a choice to make.

As to myself, currently banned as well, I have no desire to be part of a board where I fear I might get unfairly banned for whatever reasons a mod chooses to see fit.

It saddens me more than it saddens you, but feeling bad on a Christian board is not what any Christian should expect from his community.

I'll go where Christian love goes.

Fanaticism isn't my thing. Twisting Christ's words to one's preferences neither.

Banning people for opinions is not what we're here for.

How do you fix problems with people who ban for no reason?

There's a Catholic fringe over at /christian/ and they refuse any noncatholic as a Christian. It's very clear cut for them, and there's nothing to discuss in their opinion. Hence the bans: speak against their Church and you're banned. They can speak against your Church, and yourself, but God forbid you do the same.

Double standards have no place in my world.

But don't go thinking we're trying to split a community. It was already split, we simply put up with it, until the bans started raining. Now we're just regathering ourselves where we can, hoping to improve things and have ourselves a board without hatred, though with dissent.

>>152

Because the moderation on /christianity/ is firmly convinced of their viewpoint and will not change their policies. Many people are being banned very arbitrarily and nothing has changed.

At some point we have to say enough is enough.

>>158

>>160

Can't say I agree with turning and running instead of fighting for change. I'll stay on the other board and try to work out the problems from within. I would say good luck but quite frankly, I really hope this board fails and the other one gets better mods instead.

>>163

How can it get better mods if the board owner likes it? Do you not understand how the boards here work? Boards are owned and can be run in any many the owner chooses. Nothing will change about the other board's moderation precisely because nobody is willing to step away from the board when it is going wrong.

>>165

But now look at the result: 3 shitty boards instead of 1 board that can still be fixed.

/goodchristian/ is horrible and this board is empty. now /christian/ will be even slower.

I knew a christian board on 8chan was too good to last.

>>152

>We should be trying to fix problems with that board instead of starting another one.

Unless you can convince Alex to actually show up and hear us or at least make some statements I can't exactly see how are you imagining anyone fixing anything.

>>167

>>>/goodchristian/ is just the board owned by the owner of >>>/jesus/. I think it is irrelevant really.

>I knew a christian board on 8chan was too good to last.

There is no reason it has to end.

>>168

This

>>163

>Can't say I agree with turning and running instead of fighting for change.

I got banned. I didn't turn and run, I fought and got kicked out.

>I would say good luck but quite frankly, I really hope this board fails and the other one gets better mods instead.

We'll still welcome you when you get banned as well.

>>168

Get on the IRC and make an attempt to work this out then. I don't want two boards and I'm sure most people agree.

>>171

Banned for what?

>>167

> now /christian/ will be even slower.

Too bad. Maybe you guys should have thought twice before abusing your brothers.

Don't think it's our fault. We just refuse to submissively take the abuse. I don't come to /christian/ for injustice, unfairness, double standards, insults, and the rest.

Us leaving isn't what started this.

>>172

I went on irc and spoke with the mods before. They brushed it off, banned users in the chat and refused to change anything. They don't think they are wrong. Since they think they are right nothing will ever change.

You are fighting a pointless battle.

>>173

>Too bad. Maybe you guys should have thought twice before abusing your brothers.

Don't lump me in with any abuse bullshit, I'm not a mod. I just want us all to stay together that's all.

You never said why you got banned.

>>167

Thinking of the non-Christian, I don't want them to be exposed to Christ through /christian/ considering what it has become. I'd rather they get some alternatives.

All in all, /christian/ was about 60 anons. Won't be hard to get more people with an appropriate board. The way /christian/ is run, it'll die by itself.

Once only fanatics of the same mind are left, they will have nobody left to ban and nothing to discuss. Then they can do what they like best: pat each other on the back and call everyone else heretics.

>>180

Ugh, I hate that this whole thing has happened.

>>163

>and running instead of fighting for change.

We did. This is our last resort and you forced our hand.

How many threads are closed? 7 or 8? 100s of posts and dozens of users banned. We do not want to do this. We just have to.

>>167

>and this board is empty.

It is less than 10hours old. It will get filled

>Get on the IRC and make an attempt to work this out then.

We did. They laughed in our face

>>182

This

>>189

Been reading your posts for a while now, and I have two questions:

How come you got banned? You're Catholic. What happened?

Also, I read you said Protestants weren't apostolic. I hear this often and this is always taken as granted, but the first Protestants were Catholics. Luther was an apostolic priest, was he not? Therefore, Protestants also have apostolic heritage just like Catholics and Orthodox.

Let me know if I don't make sense.

>>192

He was banned for telling someone that a thread had been put into autosage by a mod.

>>199

I saw your posts and I like you.

I'm glad you're here.

>>152

Don't worry op I post on both. I am trying to change the moderation there too and I am catholic but I am posting on both boards now you can do the same. Two boards double the discussion don't you know

>>199

>If some other anon doesn't look up some proof/explanation I will do later

>Also, I read you said Protestants weren't apostolic. I hear this often and this is always taken as granted, but the first Protestants were Catholics. Luther was an apostolic priest, was he not? Therefore, Protestants also have apostolic heritage just like Catholics and Orthodox.

This would be a good thread topic I think. I know Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists claim Apostolic Succession.

>>199

Alos I am sorry I was the last bump I just kept bumping so it would hopefully be fixed sorry that got you banned

>>203

That should be Moravians, not Methodists.

>>203

>I know Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists claim Apostolic Succession.

Ha! I didn't know that but I'm not surprised. I wonder why I never thought of it myself.

On a sidenote, does it matter that much? If yes, why?

>>207

>does it matter that much? If yes, why?

I think it matters a lot but you might not.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

I know it is catholic so take from it what you will.

>>207

I made a thread on the topic here

>>211

>>208

>The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible.

I can't accept this as a reason because the very Bible shows us that no sooner had Christ departed from earth that the various Christian groups began doing shenanigans, so the very idea that these are the people we should listen to via Chinese whispers, rather than the word of Christ from the gospel, is an idea I cannot get behind. Paul spends a good deal of time dealing with the bludgeoning heresies from immediately after Christ, why should the early Christians be the guardians of what they so quickly lost themselves?

They didn't have the Bible back then, so they had to teach, and Paul had to correct them, but once we have the Bible, entrusted to us by them, is there need to have it communicated to us otherwise? I'm not entirely sure. I'm not arguing though, I'm thinking openly.

>>213

The Bible is not infallible either and it needs interpretation.

>>213

there is another argument that goes with church authorities and that is how much influence that God had when he helped the writers write the bible. There were many books that didn't get into the bible and revelation almost didn't get in either. The point is humans make mistakes and we don't know if God just gave them general direction when they wrote the bible or if he just wrote it himself and just used the writers as his hands.

>>217

I agree with this. I also think historians and linguists are more likely to provide correct intepretation than Church officials. I've seen too many Christians unwilling to understand the Bible in its original meaning to trust someone from a Church to believe what he hears when it contradicts his dogmas.

>>201

>I saw your posts and I like you.

>I'm glad you're here.

Y-you too

>>204

No it is fine in fact. I already wanted to give up but with this silly ban the mods showed me that it can't go on like this

>>221

>I agree with this. I also think historians and linguists are more likely to provide correct intepretation than Church officials.

The church officials doing this are some of the best historians and linguists in the world

>>171

>I fought

You were banned for one day for making a fuss about something that has been resolved. Also, mind how you weren’t banned for your incessant defence of masturbation.

>>175

>I went on irc and spoke with the mods before

Lies.

>>189

>We did. They laughed in our face

No.

>>195

He was banned for petitioning to shit up the board with this crap again.

And there you go, you made a schism.

Also, what won’t be tolerated: >fighting for change

> one gets better mods instead

And there probably are better mods, but I am a good mod nevertheless.

What will happen: the namefield will go. This was caused by trip/namefags who petitioned for other tripfags. Christianity is not about personal fame.

>>226

>Lies.

Yes, I did, I spoke with Semanaryanon. You should not be so quick to throw around accusations of lies when I quite clearly remember this.

>And there you go, you made a schism.

No, your arrogance and craving and abuse of power made the schism. You gave us no choice.

You are just too blinded by your own self-righteousness to ever consider that you might be doing things badly.

Look at yourself in the mirror for once.

>>228

>You gave us no choice.

I want to put emphasis on that. Today at noon we both still agreed that a splitt was silly. You proved us wrong

>>225

>The church officials doing this are some of the best historians and linguists in the world

Yes, and that is why, until recently, I always favoured the Catholic Church.

I have to go to bed, I start work in a few hours.

If this board feels like home, I might get into more details as to why I feel I can't join Catholicism. For now, I prefer to play it safe.

>You were banned for one day for making a fuss about something that has been resolved.

It hasn't been resolved because the banning of NB was one symptom of a disease and not the disease itself. Nothing has been resolved. My own ban proves the disease is still here.

>Also, mind how you weren’t banned for your incessant defence of masturbation.

Nor was there any reason for me to be. However, I did highlight the fact that I hadn't been banned for anything in recent weeks despite controversial topics.

>And there you go, you made a schism.

The moderation made Christians want to leave. Don't blame the wound for the bleeding.

>And there probably are better mods, but I am a good mod nevertheless.

Obviously not. You banned me for "making a fuss", c'mon. That's nowhere in the rules. I have no reason to accept your authority, please be aware of this fact. So, I refuse it, and the only way to do so is to leave /christian/, so I did.

I am not the only one. That is not good moderation, sorry.

>What will happen: the namefield will go. This was caused by trip/namefags who petitioned for other tripfags. Christianity is not about personal fame.

Indeed. Our names don't make us famous, since we're still as anonymous as you are. It's only a way to make our community feel more familiar and friendly. You have no name, but you brought no joy to anybody and you have hurt many of our brothers for petty reasons having to do with your ego. You are nobody to patronise about such things given your behaviour.

Christianity is not about banning Christians.

>>228

Actually, I don’t even know who you are, so you could tell any sort of bullshit. And I am not Seminarianon. After he was unbanned, Northern_Baptised wished me farewell, actually. Or was that a lie? I doubt that, because the last I read of him was: 'It is resolved and we will see what happens'.

>abuse of power

Maintaining order is not abuse of power. What OOLF did had no grounds. Besides, OOLF had it coming for his hatred of the board. Just look at either of his last posts where he basically said that everyone on /christian/ was a cunt for not accepting his view on masturbation. And I have ignored the (probably rightful) reports

>Look at yourself in the mirror for once.

Yeah, look at yourself in the mirror and see the path you trod and come back. The promise I made was resolving this issue but I wanted everyone to stay put. What was OOLFs intent anyway?

It is not an acceptable opinion to litter a board with 'rebellion'. You’re christians, change your attitude.

>>232

And you promised to shut it and still wanted someone to open a new thread.

>>236

>You have no name

Yet I probably provided more insightful comments than your constant defence of lustful behaviour. I didn’t lead people off.

>Christianity is not about banning Christians.

Christianity is not about rebellion to make a point either.

>you banned me for "making a fuss"

Yeah, I saw that you opened a thread for no reason at all, probably to gain some attention or something, I was on my way to mass and I bandeleted it because it was redundant after the issue had been resolved (since NB and the initial guy were unbanned (until that guy turned out to be an actual troll)). I have no idea if you were just trolling or if you were malicious, but I assume so, I didn’t even read the thread.

Since everyone has been proving you wrong about masturbation for weeks and you keep on petitioning, I assume you are one of these people who insist on being right for the sake of being right.

>>238

>And you promised to shut it

No I just acknowledged that discussion on /christian/ is not possible any more

>and still wanted someone to open a new thread.

no I explained how auto saging works. If I had wanted a new thread I had just made it

>Yeah, I saw that you opened a thread for no reason at all, probably to gain some attention or something, I was on my way to mass and I bandeleted it because it was redundant after the issue had been resolved (since NB and the initial guy were unbanned (until that guy turned out to be an actual troll)). I have no idea if you were just trolling or if you were malicious, but I assume so, I didn’t even read the thread.

read the ban thread on /christiandiscussion/

>>238

>You’re christians, change your attitude.

I say the same to you.

>And I am not Seminarianon

I never said you were, I said that is who I spoke to.

>The promise I made was resolving this issue but I wanted everyone to stay put.

You want everyone to stay put but do not want to change anything about the moderation style.

>Maintaining order is not abuse of power.

Most of the bans had nothing to do with order, they were to do with opinions or showing authority.

>>238

>What OOLF did had no grounds

NB asked us to share his ban on the board, so I did. I realised later that I had been late to the party, but that many others were still banned.

You could have deleted the thread after having explained this to me. I see nothing in my post that deserved banning, just like NB's.

> Besides, OOLF had it coming for his hatred of the board.

Now it sounds like you need outside reasons to justify the ban. I either deserved a ban for what I posted or I did not. There's no inbetween. The rest is neither here nor there.

>Just look at either of his last posts where he basically said that everyone on /christian/ was a cunt for not accepting his view on masturbation. And I have ignored the (probably rightful) reports

That's a gross simplifcation and strawmanned version of events. I very rarely insulted anyone despite the myriad insults thrown at me (I don't recall you banning anybody who did insult me) and I didn't report a single person who insulted me. You have ignored reports about me because you had no reason to ban me at all. I always argued politely and with facts and arguments. I can't say as much for the other side, but I did not request for them to be banned.

>What was OOLFs intent anyway?

I wanted to help Northern Baptist.

>It is not an acceptable opinion to litter a board with 'rebellion'. You’re christians, change your attitude.

I hope "bad faith" means something in English, because you have a serious case of it. You banned us and we are not coming back. End of discussion. I'll stay with Christians who don't treat me like a piece of shit for having different opinions and all sorts of questions.

>Yet I probably provided more insightful comments than your constant defence of lustful behaviour. I didn’t lead people off.

I must have opened 50 threads on /christian/, not one was about masturbation or lust. You only see what you want to see. Many of my threads are STILL there and none of them is about lust. You know this because I have a name (it's useful).

>Christianity is not about rebellion to make a point either.

Say it to Our Lord.

>>238

>Yeah, I saw that you opened a thread for no reason at all

I explained I did it because NB asked us to. I didn't realise it was resolved at the time I posted. This changes nothing to the fact that you did ban him for nothing.

>probably to gain some attention or something

No, I expected to be banned, and it happened. Nobody would want the sort of "fame" I got for myself. Now I can't say shit about anything without someone mentioning masturbation.

>I didn’t even read the thread.

I laughed, but seriously, it's sad.

>Since everyone has been proving you wrong about masturbation for weeks

Hasn't happened yet.

> I assume you are one of these people who insist on being right for the sake of being right.

Nope, I'm the sort of guy who likes his shit straight, and straight from the source if possible. I am less interested in personal interpretations than I am in the lord's word. That is all.

>>240

>I guerilla post now. I comment if I can't resist, and then it's just one long post and then I'm gone.

So OOLF has it coming for juding too quickly. Yeah. Other than that it seems like a misunderstanding. I only banned him for _one_ day because I went to mass and had to be pragmatic. I will unban you.

>>241

>You want everyone to stay put but do not want to change anything about the moderation style.

I haven’t even talked to Alex yet. There were not as much as about showing authority but as to silence a revolt. Not to save my ass but to save the board from this.

> they were to do with opinions or showing authority

No, they weren’t sho7wing authority, they were silencing criticism. Not to save my ass, but to

>You banned us and we are not coming back. End of discussion.

Speak for yourself, vanity is a cardinal sin. This all seems like a misunderstanding to begin with.

>I wanted to help Northern Baptist.

I see that now, you have to admit that it was not constructive and only served yourself. If you don’t make it hard for me now, I will unban you.

>>244

>No, I expected to be banned, and it happened.

Then that’s your problem, really, mind it’s very unchristian to provoke.

>I'll stay with Christians who don't treat me like a piece of shit for having different opinions

Yeah, this will be resolved once Alex disables the namefield.

>>244

>This changes nothing to the fact that you did ban him for nothing.

no. haven't you been following the rage of the hothead series?

>>>/christian/68385

> You trust my judgment and pray for my judgment and deal with it. I am certain that everyone who has been banned deserved it, including NB.

>>245

Aaand discipulus and OOLF are unbanned.

>>245

>There were not as much as about showing authority but as to silence a revolt. Not to save my ass but to save the board from this.

Your choices lead to this.

>they were silencing criticism.

Which is not good and has lead us to this.

>>248

And I will lead you out of this. Now as you hide behind anonymity, I have no chance to take your matter into account anyway.

>>247

do you want a price for justice taking place?

>>249

If there is a change in the way that /christian/ is moderated we will see it and adjust our actions

For now you have lost all trust

>>249

I choose anonymity, and I was never banned to start with. I just do not appreciate the current moderation style.

>>251

>do you want a price for justice taking place

It’s not so much justice as it is "mercy" and love. I don’t see a point in having you banned, no matter your lack of repentence or mine. It’s not about my choices, it’s for the board. Justice does not come from us, we are to forgive each other.

Well, trust is not exercised by continuous rebellion. And of course there is a change on the way.

>>252

If you were never banned, you are just causing disunity.

>>253

>It’s not so much justice as it is "mercy" and love

that self righteous attitude is why we left

> we are to forgive each other.

I do not hold a grudge against you. We simply disagree on how a board should be moderated. It is as simple as that

>>255

No, it is not self-righteous. Maybe you don’t get something about our calling. I put mercy in quotation marks because I knew you were gonna read it like that.

>>245

>So OOLF has it coming for juding too quickly. Yeah. Other than that it seems like a misunderstanding. I only banned him for _one_ day because I went to mass and had to be pragmatic. I will unban you.

Brother, I did not "have it coming". I did nothing to deserve a ban. Admit it. You chose to ban me for reasons outside of my responsibility: you going to mass. Remember that stuff Christ said about not bothering with going to the temple if you're at war with your own brother? You don't give a damn what Christ says, I know, but still, be coherent. You can't shit all over me just because you really must go to mass. Someone explained the situation to me in the first post and I immediately changed the topic since there was nothing further to discuss about NB (the rest of the issue was a tonload that took me a long time to read up on).

>Not to save my ass but to save the board from this.

You saved nothing. Here's the truth: had you not banned anybody at all for any reason, no schism would have occurred, so whatever heresies might have been on the board, it would have been better than this schism.

>No, they weren’t sho7wing authority, they were silencing criticism.

That's hardly better. You deserve all the criticism you are getting.

>Speak for yourself, vanity is a cardinal sin.

This is exactly your problem: I tell you this based on what anons here say. This is not vanity, you arrogant, judgemental person. You always assume the worst of everyone.

>I see that now, you have to admit that it was not constructive and only served yourself. If you don’t make it hard for me now, I will unban you.

I didn't intend to be constructive, by which I mean smoothing for you. Back then, I didn't even know the extent of what you had done. I also didn't know there was mostly only you as a mod. As to serving myself, I don't see how. What did I get out of it? I got banned, that's all. I got banned and plenty of anons were happy with it. It didn't make me happy but I didn't expect anything else. It just confirmed my decision to quit the board, which I had been thinking over for some time. Now that a new board shows up, I seize the opportunity to live a happier online Christian experience.

How could I make anything hard for you? What power do I have? I wish you the best with a board that fits your desires; I only bemoan the fact that it won't fit all Christians' desires.

Moreover, my leaving isn't solely based on your ban. The ban has little to do with it, just the icing on the cake. I don't want to come back. That board did more damage to my little faith than I had ever encountered before. I was on the verge of reverting back to atheism for some days and I'm not out of the woods yet. Don't think it's all your fault, it's not.

I don't even dislike you, I just think you're wrong on many points and I wish you'd see it, but apart from that, my decision to leave has to do with other things.

>Then that’s your problem, really, mind it’s very unchristian to provoke.

I didn't intend to provoke. Considering how you banned NB for little reason, I figured the same might happen to me. I'm not responsible for your behaviour. There's a difference between predicting your uncool behaviour and actively provoking it. Bad faith is strong in you. Please change.

>Yeah, this will be resolved once Alex disables the namefield.

Wrong. I'm staying here and quite a few of us are too. That will resolve it. Alex can do whatever he wants. I'm not coming back. I see no Christian love in you. The people here, while also disagreeing with me, are able to show Christian love. So I stick with them.

>>253

>If you were never banned, you are just causing disunity.

I created no disunity, I just acted upon already present disunity for reasons I think are good.

>You chose to ban me for reasons outside of my responsibility

No, I would have closed or deleted the thread anyway.

>than this schism

Schism comes from your attitude, not from mine:

>I don't want to come back. That board did more damage to my little faith than I had ever encountered before.

That’s your choice, go in peace.

>>260

Oh yeah, deleting that thread would have been _your_ responsibility after you have realised that you were in the wrong.

>>253

>It’s not so much justice as it is "mercy" and love.

You don't love me. For you, I'm just, at best, a heathen going to hell whose little soul is not worth spending time with. Banning for such reasons is not caring, it only drives me away from you, and if you thought you had light to show me, you'd not have turned me away from you. Personally, I speak with atheists, I don't just ban them, and I'm not even an atheist.

>It’s not about my choices, it’s for the board. Justice does not come from us, we are to forgive each other.

The board has no rules justifying many of your bans. We are to forgive each other? I forgive you, of course. I'm still not coming back. I didn't leave because of you, though I do resent the idea of a board under such moderation, even if I didn't suffer much from it myself.

You should stop letting power corrupt you. The way you speak is so arrogant and proud, it just makes things worse. I never quite believed what I heard about "the mods" before, because I rarely had unfair bans myself, but reading your words now is kind of chilling.

>>264

May I ask what advertising for a Christian board has to do with Catholics repenting?

Are you under the impression that the board was given to you as part of your Catholic duty or something?

Explain the connection to me.

>>264

Yeah.

>>263

>You don't love me. For you, I'm just, at best, a heathen going to hell whose little soul is not worth spending time with.

This made me sad, you should not think I dislike you only because you advocate sin. It is your way to cope, a way that works for you because you decided to stay outside of the church.

>The way you speak is so arrogant and proud

Did I not cause this? Why would I not take matter into my own hands. Is it not up to me to leave the high horse and reach out my hand for you? It is through my office that everythign I do seems to come from above just as charity always comes from above. But in no way do I think myself as a high person, for I am not even worthy to receive the Eucharist.

>he does it for free

>>266

He’s a catholic, it’s weird that he would split up a community, strictly spoken from a spiritual standpoint.

>>268

>This made me sad, you should not think I dislike you only because you advocate sin.

But, brother, you have never given me anything else to think about. I say a lot of things but I rarely assume any authority of my own: partly because my faith is tiny, partly because I don't relate to any official Church. I can only speak from facts and logic and even in that I am limited.

Calling me a sinner won't make me think you have things to teach me or any love for me. When did Christ approach anybody by first calling them sinners? I don't recall that.

>It is your way to cope, a way that works for you because you decided to stay outside of the church.

The way I see it, I am forced by conscience. I could choose to get in, and force myself, but my soul would not be in it, and thus, I believe, I'd still be outside the Church despite all the rituals and sacraments. This stuff doesn't work if your heart is not in it.

>Did I not cause this? Why would I not take matter into my own hands. Is it not up to me to leave the high horse and reach out my hand for you? It is through my office that everythign I do seems to come from above just as charity always comes from above. But in no way do I think myself as a high person, for I am not even worthy to receive the Eucharist.

You come from God, but your love has value of its own, since even God values it enough that He risks losing you to have your true love.

>He’s a catholic, it’s weird that he would split up a community, strictly spoken from a spiritual standpoint.

To be honest, I don't even think we should speak of a schism or split up in such serious terms. It's just boards on the Interbutts. Most anons will go to both places if there are two.

For my part, before this place happened, I was considering going back to 4chan and doing my old routine of opening a Christian thread on /b/ and facing the rage of the btards for God. I seem to be better at this than being a valued member of any Christianity community.

Here's a question: why are you here? I mean, it would seem you're sorry, but you don't say so; it would seem you want us back, but you don't say so.

>>270

>partly because I don't relate to any official Church

Yes, and this is your shortcoming, but you will get there.

>Calling me a sinner won't make me think you have things

I call myself a sinner, I have nothing to teach you that I didn’t get from Christ.

> It's just boards on the Interbutts

And even there we cannot be united. This is what we need to show to the world, that Christianity can stand united. And I believe in the spiritual body of Christ and the sacraments. And I don’t care how you receive the sacraments and I would, for example, advocate a Lutheran or even a Presbytarian ordinariate, too, but I doubt that Christ wanted us to stay apart of each other. We have to exercise unity in the littlest form that is possible for us. It’s our calling to be the light of the heathens, even in the ridiculously shallow seeming imageboard world.

>Here's a question: why are you here? I mean, it would seem you're sorry, but you don't say so; it would seem you want us back, but you don't say so.

I am sorry that this has happened, I am not sorry for what I have done. Maybe about how I have done it. I want you all back, laugh about me, but I want you back. And tomorrow, I want >>264 back, too. But I will not stop closing or deleting threads that encourage disunity, forgive me.

>>275

>but I doubt that Christ wanted us to stay apart of each other.

We're talking. We're more together than two Catholics who don't talk. That's how I see things.

>I am sorry that this has happened, I am not sorry for what I have done. Maybe about how I have done it. I want you all back, laugh about me, but I want you back. And tomorrow, I want >>264 back, too. But I will not stop closing or deleting threads that encourage disunity, forgive me.

I'm developing a soft spot for you, man. Really I am.

I don't know how others will react. If I don't come back, don't take it personally. Lately, I've posted less and less, and that was not your doing. I don't feel liked on /christian/ and I understand why.

Perhaps you can all work it out with clearer rules and everything.

I still think you shouldn't ban so lightly, considering we're a small community. It damages the community when it happens because it makes people feel like the authority cannot be trusted. I never had to complain for myself (except a few times), but I have seen bans that were too much and prevented further conversations which could have been good for everyone.

>>276

> Lately, I've posted less and less, and that was not your doing.

And when I get Alex to disable the namefield, you will be at peace. If you cannot stand the place, get detached, but make no room for the devil, and let the sun not go down on your anger.

>>277

This just backs my point up.

>>276

>but I have seen bans that were too much

Indeed that happens. It seems that even battle-hardened volunteers err (especially ban times and that one cannot just warn people). Who would have thunk? :3

>he does it for free

>>278

>And when I get Alex to disable the namefield, you will be at peace.

Everyone will know who I am regardless, that's why I got the name. People knew. I'm hard to hide.

Bed time for me, it's almost 2 am and I work at 8.

Edifying night for sure.

>over 12 hours of Christian channing

>need to get my life in order

>>281

I am going as well, ciao until the 'morrow.

>>280

Let Christ hide you in His wounds.

Soul of Christ, be my sanctification;

Body of Christ, be my salvation;

Blood of Christ, fill all my veins;

Water of Christ's side, wash out my stains;

Passion of Christ, my comfort be;

O good Jesus, listen to me;

In Thy wounds I fain would hide;

Ne'er to be parted from Thy side;

Guard me, should the foe assail me;

Call me when my life shall fail me;

Bid me come to Thee above,

With Thy saints to sing Thy love,

World without end.

Amen.

>>281

>over 12 hours of Christian channing

That would make everyone burnt out.

>>158

so this is where you went! They banned you huh? Shame. Its getting really bad over there or some reason.

>>170

>>>>/goodchristian/ is just the board owned by the owner of >>>/jesus/.

wrong again, uncle sam

BO of >>>/goodchristian/ here. You are all welcome to post there. If the rules here get too bad, you can do so

From a thread there

If you want serious discussion, there are going to be those that will destroy your thread. That's just the nature of these things. However, that is not up to me, Moderator Anon, to control. I am not God. You are God. You decide what happens here and ultimately, you have ultimate power.

If you can't handle different styles of posting, then that's your problem. However, for those who are able to 'handle the banter' as they say, you will find a rich and glorious future for both shitposting and serious discussion

(to clarify, i am not the BO of /jesus/ and have never even been to that board

>>286

It was only a statement ban, as I see it. It bears little influence on my decision to move here, though. I doubt /christian/ is a good influence for the most part, and once dissent is not accepted, then things turn sour.

Here will be slower and smaller, but I'll deal with this just fine.

Glad to see you around!

>>290

To the BO of here: I suggest we let other board owners freely advertise their boards on this one, with the agreement that we can do the same. Having a little networks of board is a good thing. If anything happens to any of them, you have plenty of other boards to go to.

We should just strive to differentiate each board.

/christ/, as I see it, is intended to be more into free speech, with thicker skin and more chan culture. You can call someone a faggot here and nobody gets mad or hurt.

>>226

Hello banning-mod

kek

I was banned because the mod's ignorance of my country, because of the mod's pride

>>2788

fixing my answer:

I came here because*…

>>2788

>>2790

Hello Venezuelanon

It is good that you returned. You are very welcome to post here.

I feared you have really turned your back on 8ch like you said…