Nationalism and the Christian

Huh?

Are you the sock account for Magenta too?

Well, you said to Hitch, "Bansville for you...." , and now Hitch is banned.
Only an Administrator is able to ban someone, usually. Unless a Moderator is given special permission.

So are you OnceFallen? Or the Admin. here?

Tell you what, I'll leave before it is bansville for me too. There is a Clique here. The oldest posting members. Ever wonder why newbies don't last? How many personalities exist as different screen names but are those few in the Clique playing games, I wonder.

I'll have to look for reviews on this site and see who else has seen what I've seen.

Good day.

What a tragedy you are.
Passive aggressive. Dual natures.

Apparently being observant makes one a sock puppet

And if you have friends, they are all your sock puppets, too

Actually, that is what I usually post when an obnoxious member is banned. Personally, I hate to see anyone banned. I wrote that particular post after the guy was banned. I had no part in that process. Moving forward now.

That guy was definitely strange that's for sure.

Agree 100% about abortion. That single national sin makes the United States the most wicked nation to ever exist. Sometimes though it is necessary to send soldiers to war if the cause is justifiable.

I just don't think that has happened since... what, World War II maybe?

I think he was trying to express that he felt that he was being paraphrased out of context.

He was making a reference in his initial post to 1 John 4:20

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" - 1 John 4:20

Hitch seemed to be looking at the passage as an "IF/THEN" statement, that IF one hates their brother THEN they can't love God. Which is true in a sense, just not in the context of something being "forbidden". I think Hitch just used the wrong word here. The more correction "IF/THEN" would be IF one hates their brother THEN it is an indication that they don't truly love God.

JJ's criticism fairly addressed Hitch's introduction of the concept that loving God could ever be a "forbidden" thing.

Hitch seemed to be frustrated that the focus was about the "forbidden to love" status outside of the context of the conditioning "IF" statement. He continued to use the term "edit" to express that he perceived his words to be "paraphrased out of context." I think he was just missing what the criticism was really about.

Some forums have policies that are titled or explained as "let me edit that for you" quotes where a user maliciously changes the content of another user (typically when presented in a quote container) usually for the purpose of gaslighting or making someone appear foolish. I think that kind of projection was unfair from Hitch, if that is indeed where he was coming from, but it would make sense as to why he was adamant that another user had "edited" his post. That usage of "edit" is common in some other forums.

For anyone wondering what happened, I hope this might bring some light to the situation. Language barriers are unfortunate, but they happen.

Ok, you have ZERO proof! So stop with the false accusations!

It certainly can.

You mean out of THOUSANDS of people including children, it's ok to murder them? Nukes are weapons of mass murder.

Justifiable? According to whom? The media? LYING politicians who are stealing fortunes in tax payer money?

How? And I'd appreciate more than a snippy quip for an answer. Please explain your position on this.

Again, please define "innocent". Dodging the question with blather doesn't answer it.

You consider being merciful as being "snippy"?

You're ok with dropping nukes on children?