Rules and Meta

They're all made by some Brazilian queer from a 4chan general. Most his posts there are posting nude images of himself and trying to lead other anons astray, so it's pretty clear that he's not being genuine in any of his threads here. I wish the mods would just delete on sight instead of letting them get that far, tbqh.

Is it an lgbt thread or what?

/bant/. I had a bunch of his posts saved because I was going to make a thread on him, but I thought he left so I never did.

i think he may have been talking about this.

I was browsing the catalogue and I saw a post about redditors from women are moderators now? It was deleted by the time I clicked it so I guess I can't find out the facts.

It's a thread made by a ban evader, which is why the thread you probably saw was removed. He's responding to another user's post about how the mod team has a range of people on the moderation team, and he happened to include women. People like him have taken this to mean that now there are multiple women moderating the board, but this isn't true.

The truth is that there is a single woman moderator who's exclusively a mod on our official Discord server. She has no powers here on the board. Hope this answers your question.

I gotta be honest here … you should not have had to clarify that. People sitting on a board on a website that's surrounded by gay porn, bestiality, pedophilia, racism, and all manner of grotesquery should have the idea of a female volunteer be the LEAST of their concerns. It is literally a non-issue.

Pic related and several other Serenity images that I've seen floating around have got me wondering. Would you guys be alright with a Serenity thread? It is, after all, the magnum opus of "Christian manga." Having been on this board for quite some time now, I find it surprising that I haven't seen it posted yet. I think it would be a silly, self-aware bit of fun for the board.

The reason I'm asking here ahead of time is because it would take me a while to dig through archives and find all of the pages – not to mention all the sorting and labelling required. If the thread's going to be deleted as off-topic or something, I'd be wasting all of that. I'd like to get clearance first.

Attached: Can't Show That.png (1650x2003, 123.93K)

There's nothing wrong with it. If you want to do it, go ahead.

More often than not women are leftist/sjw. Leftism/feminism is how women are manipulated. All it takes in one sjw mod of that ideology to bring down an entire board, or even culture.

You clearly have no idea the damage one weaponize woman can do given the right Jewish tactics/lawyers.

Attached: FT_16.11.09_exitPolls_gender.png (1344x2896 35.78 KB, 247K)

As a former Christian, I have some hard fucking questions. Will they be seen as trolling?

Not at all, make a thread specifically saying you want some questions answered. Just be sure not to call anyone names or to be unnecessarily rude (i.e. just random blasphemies, profanity at people and the like).

We had someone try that on the discord community, I saw it a mile away and put it down hard. I'll burn the place to the ground before I let an SJW get anywhere near an authority position. I'm a bit older than most of the people here so can much more easily see when they are try to pull something with the thirsty guys. I have no tolerance for female shenanigans. So don't worry about that.

Further reading, iirc it was "SJWs always lie" that covers this pretty well, but I think Vox put out a new book specifically about infiltration, haven't read the new one though.

The fact that you're so terrified of women shows me way more about you than it does about women. I will pray for you to learn some respect for what is half of God's creation and to stop buying into MGToW propaganda.

Being a false witness is a sin, i never said not to date them, i'm stating fact. Nice try though.

Attached: b3c0242c4ae6468161d3d12b468f5e92e3846cf4c8c26cfcc91bd064f7a30493.jpg (454x594 1.28 MB, 77.34K)

You're not stating a fact. You're stating a supposition based on /r9k/-level propaganda surrounding what amounts to less than 5% of the women on the planet. You're acting like a petulant high-school boy who didn't get his pee-pee touched by that cute girl he stared at all year in algebra.

You need to man up. And THAT is a fact.

Playing the odds? try Zig Forums or /v/ level propaganda, maybe that will work.
Yeah, it's not like a minority can have a more powerful victim-hood for being less than 2% of the population.

You're blatantly proving my point.

Also none of that i've posted or talked about has to do with the sexual market nor dating. But by all means, keep being a repetitive and wrong.

Attached: You .jpg (640x486, 81.4K)

Why dose no one care that we have an active archive going on like 4chan?

Attached: Datamining.png (1003x1875, 238.67K)

Hi Satan. People actively struggling to resist their sodomite impulses ought to be able to have a thread to discuss it, ask for moral support, etc. If we get to have threads where we talk about resisting the urge to jerk off, they ought to get threads where they discuss their struggles with their own bad sexual impulses. Just make a rule of one thread max, or make one permanent thread if you're worried about too many threads fagging up the board.

Just a heads up, I disabled flags (for Lent) and added some explanations to the rules. There were a lot more internal changes on the mod team so you will be seeing some changes in the way modding is done. Specifically the red text. No more "joke" red text, and less vague "user was banned" text. The reason text block will also be more full (the mods will give more information for why they banned something and how to avoid breaking the rule in the future). The only things exempt from this are spam because of the sheer number of deletions involved in it, and porn for obvious reasons.

edit: Locking meta thread for a day so everyone can see this post on the front page.
sidenote: thanks for the dab random poster

Sounds familiar.

Attached: --christian-- Turning off flags.png (235x30, 930)

Please give up Roman Catholicism for lent

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (444x640, 341.48K)

Try giving up schism first

Explain this? You dislike the flags.
I thought a person was supposed to give up something he likes.

will have joke red text again after lent?
if no, ill cry.

Attached: f5affcec97.jpg (637x310, 48.52K)

I'll miss the redtext bans ;^(

Attached: Screenshot_20170831-151623.jpg (444x110 44.05 KB, 31.94K)

redtext bans was actually fun to watch
rip redtext

Fun Redtext ban enthusiast uprising!

Attached: 1471549698121.gif (333x286, 175.75K)

Before:
The board is divided between mod supporters (mostly Cathodox) and antimod forces (mostly Baptists)
After:
The entire board enters an uprising because the mods decide to stop using funny bantext

Attached: Boatmurdered.jpg (600x550, 84.8K)

Also aren't you supposed to give up something of your own that you like, rather than forcing those of us who don't willingly participate in your extra-Bibical holiday tradition to give up our flags?

You should also turn on mod logs (for Lent).

Sounds like you're trying to give up Zig Forums for lent

Why did you (((mods))) delete my "SHALL" post in the gun thread?

nevermind. apparently there are 2 gun threads right now! and i got confused. :)

Where do the rules mention the fathers? Do you mean the part about the Chalcedonian Definition? I just looked it up and that does seem troublesome since the Chalcedonian Definition mentions Mary being the theotokos (mother of God), something which virtually no protestants would agree with. Why did mods add the Chalcedonian Definition to the requirements to be considered a Christian? That would exclude almost all protestants, except maybe Lutherans and some Anglicans.

I'm not sure I understand the ban text for this post.
It seems like the thread he posted that in was the most relevant active thread he could have posted in, because OP asks for "the scoop on the Catholic religion"
Would the same warning be given to a post that said (mormonism, Andersonism, Pentacostalism, Protestantism) instead of Roman Catholicism?

Attached: Untitled.png (551x92, 5.12K)

I don't want to be rude, but you have a very poor understanding of Christianity. Virtually all protestant groups are Chalcedonian. Up until recently, the only non-chalcedonian Christian groups were Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East. But this is no longer the case in large part. The only people who are no longer Chalcedonian are non-trinitarian groups like some SDA, JW, and the like. They are not Chalcedonian de facto. This has not been controversial

Mary as Theotokos is imperative otherwise you worship a different Jesus. I won't break it all down in one post but you need to do your research.

I had lifted it right before I checked the meta thread. When I first saw it, I read it wrong and thought he was saying something else so I let it stand. He put in an appeal and it made perfect sense so I unbanned him. It was a day ban anyway, but hopefully this did not cause him too much inconvenience.

Most protestants don't believe in referring to Mary as the mother of God. Not because they deny that Jesus is God but because of the other implications of that title.

Attached: e0d84e6f39e15aab9aed3e9e9e89b706b8cfc95f0b88bf89301256d49d8192c4.png (652x869, 132.11K)

Lutherans and anglicans plus not-100% calvinists reformed do believe that Mary is the Mother of God. Some evangelicals do to. And even some baptist. Defientlly no andersonites, but that;s the good thing, only thing that they bring here is shitpost that is funny only in some cases.

That's what I said in my previous post, only Lutherans and Anglicans believe it and not all of them. Reformed is basically synonymous with Calvinist so not sure what you mean there. Of course you can find people on the fringe in any denomination with beliefs outside their denomination's norm. But in general prots do not use the theotokos title.

Lutherans and Anglicans are half of protestants. They are reformed who does not agree with everything that Calvin said (and I don't blame them, he was nuts). Don't know about this board statistics but I can bet that majority of us are chalcedonian.
But seriously, even orginal non-chalcedonians agree with tilte of Theotokos (thought they prefer to use Christotokos still). At this point non-chalcedonian protestants are like non-nicean protestant - not christian.

So you think Jesus was not born like a human? You deny Jesus human nature?

You've got that wrong. The only groups that deny her the title are influenced by Anabaptism. The only Calvinists you'll find denying it are some sort of Reformed Baptist.

Not really. Calvinism is just a soteriological position, while Reformed theology is a whole systematic theology which is why Reformed Baptists aren't true Reformed

I'm at work, sorry I can't sit on the board all day.

I'll make the explanation as simple as I can: Mary gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is one person. Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine. There was never more than one Jesus. He isn't some composite of two Jesus'.

For the sake of this board, if you do not believe Mary gave birth to Jesus, and that Jesus is one person who is fully God and fully man, then you are simply out of order and should not post in fellowship threads.

If you want to discuss it further, feel free to visit the discord.

Jesus Christ is both created and uncreated, user.

Who took away flags? I liked flags.

Flags are gone for lent. They'll be back when it's over I'm sure.

Can we get an explanation on the flags?

The flags are gone for the period of Lent as an experiment, to see how the board changes without the flags, and since Lent is a time of sacrificing things we enjoy for Christ, flags seemed to fit the bill as a board-wide sacrifice.

...

One of the reasons is people asking as to how the rules fall. Rule 2 is one of the bigger reasons we offer warnings or bans, and often people don't understand its application when we have to use it. Redtexts as of now offer the rule broken and why it was broken so as to ensure there's no confusion on either end.

I hope you mistyped

It wasn't a mistype. For example, if Rule 2 was broken by a post, the user who made it would receive a warning, and the redtext for the ban would read like:

What happened to this thread? It was interesting with the Lectio Divina stuff. It’s also a pretty old thread, I don’t get why it was suddenly deleted out of nowhere

Attached: D4400D26-60AC-4E6F-9EA0-7E250A04A9FB.jpeg (1242x1491, 277.91K)

The mods want to keep board traffic to a bare minimum. The only new threads that are allowed are question threads. Everything else goes into the containment threads

stupid mod thinks it's his wife but she's mine!

Is that true? Cause that’s stupid if true, especially considering that it (1) was a question thread and (2) was an old thread

Sorry i meant question threads about catholic events and stuff is only allowed. And the occasional "im a fag/loser/autist please help me" thread.

Then you are claiming to read men's hearts, because why it was broken is the intention for the post.

The rules have been expanded and explained a bit, but I think something's still missing.
Rule 2 will always be subjective until you mods provide an exhaustive list of exactly which words/phrases/doctrines/thoughts will get you warned/banned.
If rule 2 states that calling someone a retard earns you a day ban, a person who calls someone a retard knows exactly what he's doing. The person reporting the infraction knows exactly what he's reporting. The vol knows exactly what to ban and what to allow.
Standardization.

We probably should made few denom-specific thread so each denomination can provide list with obvious lies and slanders. But it would have to be backed by some good source. For exemple, it's easy to point out that "pope is dagon priest due the hat" is literal meme from someone who know shit about both Babylon and Church and that mitre came from Byzantine helmets. And after a while, say, week, mods would gather data, filter it and put oficial list of banable offenses. And we could revision it regulary, say four times a year (maybe on ember weeks or whatever).

How about no

How about you instead find answer or debunk whatever criticism motivated this obvious post.

Its a nice idea, but there would be no interdenom fighting if we fundamentally agreed on what a good source was. I'll accept Biblehub, not catholicanswers.com.
Personally I don't think there's any doctrine that should get you banned, that the truth is worth explaining and striving for, but it seems that that's the state of Zig Forums

Really nigga?

What do you mean by that?

Well there are creeds, councils, official statements, catechisms etc. for Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Orientals, Easterlings and some old Baptists. That would be it. There are well respected historians, lawyers, and theologians from each denom too.
It's rough idea but it should sound better in those who oppose total modocracy
There are things that Christians cannot agree on in their tolerance. Mormonism is not acceptable. Arianism, paleo-nestorianism that even Easterlings don't subscribe to, pelagianism, gnosticsim etc etc too.
And there are obvious lies that are so udoubtly stupid that it's just miserable. I mentioned dagon hat meme alredy. I could add up things like "Petrine cross=satanic symbol", "all reformed don't belive in free will", "lutherans don't belive in real presence", "all baptists are andersonists", "all evangelicals belive in rapture/are zionists", "all anglicans belive in women ordination", "orthodoxies are cryptobuddhists" et cetera ad nuseam.
Though I will admit, big if not the biggest portion would be anti-anti-catholic. But it falls from necessity, for we are here (according to who you talk) 500-2000 years, so memes grow in size and kind. And we are biggest denom out there (and I think that also here, though I don't know). Plus anglo-saxon culture (and by extend, chan culture as well) was for a very long time anti-catholic.

Some mod should answer this proposition.

I do like the idea of a frequently asked questions sticky, but it would have to be kept as far from moderation as the east is to the west. It should never be a bannable offence to say that the pope wears a fish god hat, especially if its so easy to disprove.
And of course it circles back to the fact that people are going to read the proofs they want to read and ignore the proofs they want to ignore. I think, for instance, that pastor Anderson is one of the most lied about people on this board, and most of the lies come from people who haven't listened to one sermon of his from start to finish, but feel like they intimately know everything about him from a few clips. Post anything positive about him and certain folks react like snails and salt.
if a position is worth defending, is worth arguing for. If trannyposters are taken on good faith here, everyone should be.

You're basically trying to make a containment thread for what makes the denoms different instead of letting them discuss their differences. If something like the theory that the pope is a dagon priest bothers you, than look into it and find a good answer.

The thread was devolving into shitposting beyond any of the topics you'd discuss on Zig Forums.

It's not so much an issue of reading men's hearts than it is being able to look at a post and understand it as breaking rule 2. Posts like:
Would be examples.

If a concern about a certain denom's theology is brought up to a point where it wouldn't otherwise be better placed in the QTDDTOT thread, then by all means wholesome discussion should be done. One of the points of the board is ecumenicism that allows for us to understand each other beyond memes and basic knowledge. There IS a difference between a bait thread and a genuine question, however, the chief characteristic being the nature of the question itself. If you ask a question in good faith, such as:
as opposed to asking in bad faith, like:
If you have a question or observation, then, try to make sure it's in good faith.

I guess it depends on the board, but Isn't the point to discuss topics more than working together? There will always be information that will offend certain poeple, that might have some truth to it. Hushing them doesn't bring closure, that is why the memes happen, as a way to poke fun at certain topics without getting into a looping subject.

I actually agree with you more than i disagree, i would want the denoms to find an answer to their differences.

The problem is that it was a thread that wasn't quality at all. If you want to talk about girls that aren't figures within Christianity, there's plenty of other boards to do that, namely
>>>/b/
where I'm sure you could talk to your heart's content.

Memes are perfectly fine, but we're also here to figure out the principles of Christianity, and the extensions that each denom offer.

The OP's pic had the consequence of causing derailment to begin with. If you want to talk about Lectio Divina, then do so while also not inviting the opportunity for derailment.

No, I'm asking that if you want to talk about serious subjects like Lectio Divina, then do so in a constructive and wholesome manner. Posting for the sake of derailing would just get your posts deleted.

We shouldn't have esoteric rules that are left unstated. All rules should be posted in the OP. I shouldn't have to guess and check and, through trial and error, determine the rules. Let's list off the rules so far as I have them
You guys can have any rules you want, I just want them all written out so there's no confusion

My concern was twofold:
1. How the OP was written out
2. The picture that accompanied it
Considering we had an influx of spam threads, I wasn't sure if the thread was one of many spam threads that had shown up on the catalog. I'm sorry for misreading the situation and for misunderstanding your intention.

You're missing the point, the first few posts in the thread were ones criticizing how low effort and mindless the thread was, having it become beta and waifu faggotry isn't Christian. The OP (intentional or not) artificially inflated the thread.

While i don't like that threads get ended early on such subjective evaluations, it was a dead end thread bumped by waifu faggotry.

hooktube.com/watch?v=EhyJabdsdCk

Attached: Some anons, still want to belive she's christian.png (1571x707, 931K)

If mods delete all the bad threads then what do we use to measure the quality of a thread?

No bad threads=No good threads

Attached: reece.JPG (504x415, 27.02K)

Yeah, come on, m8. We know you're one of the mods pretending "I'm just a normal guy like you fellow Zig Forumss"

Attached: zif.jpg (130x179, 13.49K)

>flags are gone
Soooooo, is the BO's mission complete: no one but Cathbros are left on the board?

oh ffs, there goes ANOTHER one of the few remaining reasons I still bother to contribute to this snivelling milquetoast board

I'm betting this will be the longest Lent in Christian history

>Rule #5 kills best
>Rule #8 is killing the board best
Least we'd all know where we all stood

There were always three kinds of catholics here: Cathbros, soon-to-be-catholics and jesuit shitposters aka baptists

your mom gay

In my opinion, the noflag experiment has had some interesting results.
Before, all the denoms would divide and bicker with eachother. Now, it's now a bizarre mire of anons blindly arguing with eachother not knowing who's the Catholic and who's a Baptist.
The threads seem to get derailed a bit less often though.

It just lends to needless confusion.

Is this Max?

Why did my post in this thread get deleted that said calling Mary "the queen of heaven" is stupid pagan crap when it's literally stupid crap pagans in the Bible did?
Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

It's really sad how you protestants manage to horseshoe into literally spitting on on the mother of God or depictions of her the same way a Satanist would.

It's literally a name retard fagans made up.

Also how does me not worshipping her mean I hate her?

Also
Bake more cakes fggt

Prepare to have your arguments ignored

Nah, I'm saying you'll be banned because you said a mean word and you have "the wrong opinions"
I have the same wrong opinions and you'd know that if flags were enabled.

Please do not carry on your debates in the meta thread.