logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Yada  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, August 25, 2010 3:02:10 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

For some time now, I've been very concerned about what I had been seeing taking place on the forum recently. The "abrasiveness" reached a level where it could no longer be tolerated and had to be addressed. Since the two worst offenders happen to also be two of our own moderators, I was in a real quandary as to how best to handle it. I, and others on the forum who were seeing the same distasteful situation unfold and expand, after our initial shock, were focused on trying to figure out how this could be resolved. I finally wrote to Yada to ask his for his advice and I've posted his response to me below:


Quote:


Jim,

In that this is now the third time over the past several months that you have brought the caustic posts of a once valuable contributor to the Yada Yahweh Forum to my attention, I assume that you did so because you want me to respond to his augments—something I have consistently refrained from doing. Either that, or you forwarded this link to me to remind me that all of those who have complained recently, saying that this individual has developed a horrible attitude, were right, and that he should be encouraged to desist, change his tone, or go away before he drives many others away. Also I suppose that you wanted to remind me that there is a consequence of continuing to ignore this divisive situation—especially as this person becomes ever more antagonistic in his posts.

As the founder and initial administrator of the forum, through your dedication to it, you have earned the right to express these concerns. It must tear your heart out, as it does mine, to see the forum you nurtured abused in this way, especially now that this individual appears to be on the cusp of unwittingly using a good friend to advance his agenda. And recognizing how insightful and relevant his posts once were, it is depressing to witness him so unnecessarily squander his considerable intellectual gifts, and in the process become so defensive, self-absorbed, and demeaning to others.

As I have shared with you previously, there are three reasons why I have felt that it would be counterproductive to engage in this situation. First, I don’t have a problem with people personally criticizing me. I’m admittedly imperfect and unqualified—and all too often wrong. I expressly ask people not to trust me, but to instead do the research themselves. Further, I live in a glass house. In my own emails, in my own books, and on my own site, I am often acerbic in dealing with the delusions of religious people—especially on issues which matter. Albeit, with the attitude problem you and so many others have brought to my attention, this person’s inappropriate tone is not being manifest in his personal emails, his book, or his site, but instead on our site. The people he is demeaning aren’t religious, ignorant, or irrational, and the agenda he is promoting is without merit.

In all of these years, I have never responded to anything said about me or my books in the Yada Yahweh Forum. In fact, aside from the occasional email exchange which is posted there by others, you won’t find anything from me anywhere in the Forum. The two or three times over these many years that I have engaged, has been on the periphery as an advisor, and only then when it came to helping you weed out unnecessarily arrogant, caustic, or agenda-driven, self-promoting participants. Since this situation has evolved to the worst such case either of us has witnessed in this regard, for the first time ever I am directly engaging and writing this response personally.

That is not to say that I never defend what I’ve written. I’ve dutifully responded to a thousand email criticisms of Prophet of Doom which have been sent directly to me, all because the evidence and reasoning contained in the book is capable of enlightening and saving souls. Similarly, while I have only received a handful of email letters critical of Yada Yahweh, and none critical of Questioning Paul, I have responded to each for the same reason.

Also, since the Yada Yahweh Forum attack on The Great Galatians Debate volume of Questioning Paul is, by the critic’s own admission, limited to authorship, not its message, I see no reason to break my streak of never having responded to any specific argument brought against me personally or my writings in the Forum. Yada Yahweh Forum members have always been and remain free to criticize me and my books. As evidence of this (while it has not been helpful here), I have received scores of letters constructively criticizing something I have written in Yada Yahweh, every one of which has helped me improve the book. So this is about trying to eliminate a caustic attitude, not critical content.

Second, a rebuttal to this individual’s posts would be a complete waste of my time—even the reader’s time. Even if every argument he raised were true (and many are not), and even if he proved his case (which he did not always do), most of what he said would not matter. The problem with Paul’s statements in Acts, Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans isn’t the identity of the author nor the vocabulary deployed; it’s the errant message!

Unfortunately, surprisingly, the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul are not truthful. They were not inspired by God. They are overtly opposed to the Torah. Moreover, Romans, which is universally attributed to Paul, conveys the same message found in Galatians. In fact, Galatians serves as the foundation for Romans. Further, there are anti-Semitic remarks and errant predictions in Thessalonians and disingenuous statements in addition to demonic overtures in Corinthians. And that makes any attempt to separate Paul from Galatians irrelevant. As such, refuting these theories would be a counterproductive distraction.

The only potential value of distancing Paul from Galatians would be if Galatians alone, among all of the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul, was anti Torah and errant. But this is not the case. They are all rotten.

The Great Galatians Debate Volume of Questioning Paul uses what Yahuweh revealed in His Torah, and what He wrote with His own finger on stone tablets, to demonstrate that the great preponderance of people who rely upon the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul will die—billions of them. And many if not most of those who promote Pauline Doctrine (something no one appears to be doing in the Forum, thank goodness) will spend their eternity in the abyss. Revealing and explaining why this is so, is essential to our salvation. Determining who wrote some or all of these letters and ascertaining why the vocabulary differs somewhat among won’t save anyone. There isn’t anything to be gained by irritating or dividing people over any of this. Thus since the issues of authorship and terminology are superfluous to this essential warning, and since I have read nothing in the Forum to suggest that any of Paul’s letters are truthful, I will not debate these issues.

Third, I would be surprised if the offensive, agenda-driven, tone improves post exhortation. The posts have become so belligerent, so self-promoting, and personally demeaning of others, it doesn’t appear that their author is capable of handling criticism—constructive or otherwise. If I am correct in this assessment, no matter what is said, he will continue to lash out, personally demeaning those who do not acknowledge him as being completely right, even unquestionably truthful, while at the same time acknowledging that his imaginary opponents are wrong, biased, and even inferior in their thinking. Therefore, in all likelihood, nothing will be accomplished by denouncing his inappropriate tone other than to make matters worse. Any reply, no matter how sincere or sensitive will probably increase his hostility and divisiveness as he attempts to get people to side with him and against me. I’ve seen this same situation play out many times before, and always with the same result.

Jim, I have read this individual's initial comments—at least as they appear in this section of the discussion you sent me from the Yada Yahweh Forum. While his information is often sound, albeit incomplete, and his judgment sometimes flawed, with half-truths permeating his once immaculate posts, it’s his approach and attitude toward others he views as less intellectually gifted that many like myself find deplorable—unacceptable. Further, his personal evaluation of his plagiarized title, "The Great Galatians Debate," is specifically designed to be divisive and self-serving, even demeaning of others. And yet from beginning to end his research project wallows in the irrelevant realm of word phrasing and scholastic opinion, and it consistently ignores the only thing which actually matters: the errant message contained within Galatians.

As you may know Jim, I have received three unsolicited rebuttals to what many of us consider to be a misguided adventure into the pedantic realm of what scholars call “textual criticism.” When asked privately, I have written and shared three evaluations of my own. In each case, the merits of his article were rendered moot, and his most powerful arguments were refuted. It wasn’t difficult to do so, even in the section he is most proud of, so none of us are bragging. But we didn’t share what we had written publically for the very reasons listed above. And I won’t do so here.

The fact is, The Great Galatians Debate volume of Questioning Paul is focused on how the message contained in Galatians, as well as other testimony attributed to and claimed by Paul in Acts, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans differs from Yahweh’s Word. So, other than to steal my title without permission, the other “Great Galatians Debate” isn’t actually a refutation of the evidence I have provided to demonstrate that the letters attributed to Paul are not true. And that is all I care about.

Furthermore, Paul’s abysmal testimony in Acts, and the horrid content of the letters claimed by Paul and addressed to the assemblies in Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome—some or all of which are surely attributable to the individual known to us as Paul—are individually more than sufficient by themselves to expose and condemn Paul as being an errant messenger, a false prophet, and an uninspired and unappointed apostle. And that makes the debate over which of these errant religious documents the person known to us as Paul actually wrote nothing more than a pointless scholastic exercise—something I shared with him before he engaged in this endeavor.

Those whom I have grown to respect in the forum, those who have recently written me about this person’s migration from very insightful to caustic posts, all say that the only reason they have not responded directly to him is that they have witnessed how inappropriately he has responded to others. They don't need or want the aggravation. They have simply distanced themselves from the Forum, and chosen not to participate any more.

But all of this begs the question: why would anyone feel the need to express themselves as he is now doing in these posts? Recognizing that it doesn't matter who wrote Galatians or Romans, only that Galatians and Romans are wrong, one must ask: what is he trying to prove, and to whom is he trying to prove it? It all reads like someone struggling with personal insecurity—and not like someone trying to learn or share "the truth." Somewhere along the line a good and very smart person, seems to have lost his way.

Over the course of the past few months, you and others has directed my attention to the following examples from this person’s more recent posts:

“I'm sorry, but you appear to have just completely, totally and utterly missed the entire point being made in the document. Download it, read it, and compare it to Yada's QP. I shouldn't really have to explain everything else.”

“I'm certain that other people have also read the document, and I'm a bit surprised that only you have actually made any comment about it, especially as I do kinda contradict most of Yada's "Questioning Paul" website.”

“I certainly see the apparent contradiction, and saw it myself - I'm merely following the scholar's criteria for deciding what should be undisputed and disputed and applying the scholar's own criteria against Galatians.”

“Heh. Didn't mean to come across as a jerk.”

“I had always thought said theory was ridiculously ludicrous, and now I know why.”

“Okay, this is probably going to be the 15th time I've explained this. Hopefully someone may listen to and understand what I say this time around.”

“No, we're not, because that would be ludicrous, nonsensical and incongruous.”

“No, because that too is completely stupid.”

“It's time to change your way of thinking, because your thinking is in error.”

“So, because I'm pointing out the inaccuracies and fallacies in peoples thinking, assumptions, presumptions, false premises, conjectures, imaginations, postulations, and ridiculous fancies, and because I don't agree with Yada (and provided an 118 page document & 56 page Appendix outlining numerous problems with thinking that Paul wrote Galatians, which no one has refuted), and because I'm standing up for trying to ascertain the truth without bias, I'm apparently the one who can't see the forest for the trees?”

“Ken also pointed out how trying to twist Genesis 49:27 to say something about Paul was completely absurd and grotesque, and no one refuted what he said either.”

“My quotes from Proverbs weren't meant to be taken as rudeness, but to point out that people need to take reproof very seriously.”

“If what people were saying about Paul were true, I wouldn't be proving them wrong, and I wouldn't have any problem with what they were saying.”

“So whilst I'm most certainly not Pro-Paul, it looks like I am because I'm having to correct everyone's false claims.”

“And seeing as though not a single person has answered any of my posts or questions, nor have they even acknowledged what kp wrote regarding the Benjamin prophecy of Genesis 49:27, I deem it to be absurd and unreasonable that people can demand us to answer questions, when they themselves refuse to do the same.”

“The unknown author of the article is a hypocrite and a liar, and obviously hadn't done enough searching before he started making blanket statements. And the owner of the webpage that posted this unknown author's article is also a liar when he states "Note: I do not know who wrote this and have been unable to trace it. But I checked the information and it is correct," when actually, the information isn't correct.”

“It should be noted that TGGD is not a "Theologically minded" discussion of Galatians, but an historical and meticulous examination of whether Paul was it's author or not. So if the only thing people are having problems with are my interpretation of a certain verses Theology, then it's not really all that important to the overall message of the document.”

“I'm sorry to say though, people are most certainly "picking on Paul". I can't get passed a single thread without someone saying Paul has said something or other, when actually he hasn't.”

“Sorry if you thought I was insulting you, I wasn't and I didn't mean to insinuate that I was doing so. I am however tired of all the misinformation that people have about Paul that no one apart from me seems to be challenging. I'm also tired that people aren't checking what Yada has said in QP. This all accumulated into the reply I wrote above, and I apologise - it wasn't an attack at you, and would've come about no matter who started this thread.”

“Yada's "discrediting" of Paul is but a mere emotional response that has gone completely over the top which resulted in him routinely attacking the messenger, as well as saying some of the most heinous things that I didn't think were possible… all of which isn't true, and is a severely disgusting and abhorrent paragraph that should discredit the whole of QP. This paragraph is just sickening, and no one should defend it.”

“Yada, with QP, turned himself into a hypocrite (for he constantly goes on about how wrong it is to attack the messenger, and yet, what is most of QP?), and also demonstrated that without Yahuweh's help, Yada can't translate Greek for squat (See his translation of Acts 15 and 2 Thessalonians, and check them against mine.”

“I haven't made a personal insult or attack on anyone, nor said they were "unlearned". I have answered peoples questions and queries left, right and centre, but people either ignored what I said, or brought up something else for me to answer.”

“Well, never mind all this. The Great Galatians Debate document isn't about whether Paul is an apostle or false prophet or a magical ivory mongoose - it is whether he wrote Galatians or not. So, unless people have anything to talk about Paul writing Galatians, take this tangented debate to another topic.”

“Sure, and I've given enough of my valuable time answering such people. It's time for others to have a go, so that those of us that answer these people most of the time don't go mental.”

“Well, unfortunately most people now have only read one side's core view regarding Paul, so people are hardly in the right place to make a truly informed decision on the subject. The only thing people can do at the moment is to check the one side's exhibit edevidence to make sure whether they have presented the evidence properly or not.”

“Quite a few people don't agree with Yada's take on Paul, and KP is one of them. Paul 'tisin't a dirty word.”

“And you know what, I'm done with this thread. Until someone comes and actually attempts to refute the evidence brought by me regarding Revelation 2:2, I really don't see the need for this thread to continue past this post.”

“And oddly enough, this thread has become inane as well. Absolutely inane.”

As you know, Jim, I am not alone in saying that I'm deeply disturbed by the turn earlier this year in this individual's attitude and approach. And like you, and others, I am saddened that he is now using the Yada Yahweh Forum in this way. He has gone from being a tremendous asset to a liability, from enlightening to abrasive. So if he wishes to overtly demean others while arrogantly promoting himself and his site, he should do so elsewhere. If some forum participants enjoy his attitude and style, his insights and opinions on Paul's evolving phraseology, as many seem to do, they can follow him. They are even free to remain engaged in both forums should they choose. But posts like those listed above must cease. They display an attitude which is not welcome in a site devoted to fellowship and sharing Yahweh’s Word.

Speaking of others, since they were inserted in the link you sent me, let me say that I found Ken’s comments far more right than wrong. And yet, since Ken hasn't read QP, he is unaware of the other evidence linking Paul to the Benjamin wolf, especially those found at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7, and in the gripping conclusion of John. Further, Ken, more than anyone, knows that most prophecies have a near and far fulfillment, but lacking those insights, has missed one of the two this time. That said, KP provides a very nice recap of the near fulfillment, and I always love his approach and style. He's a great writer. I'm pleased to see that he is still engaged, sharing his considerable knowledge and wisdom.

Returning to the only issue which matters, I want you to know that while I am convinced that the evidence is overwhelming, and that the criticisms are easily refuted, I do not care even if everyone on the planet chooses to disassociate Paul with the ravenous wolf prophecies in Genesis, Matthew, and John. It means nothing to me if everyone disassociates Paul and his associates from the "false apostles" charge in Revelation regarding Ephesus. I do not care if everyone chooses to believe that an unknown ghostwriter composed Galatians without anyone noticing. It matters not to me if everyone ignores the fact that apostolos is used as a title (and less as a verb) throughout the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul. It matters not if a reader is unaware of the fact that The Great Galatians Debate of Questioning Paul demonstrates that Paul was a false prophet as a result of the timing of his errant harpazo prediction in Thessalonians, and also by referencing Yahuweh’s test in Deuteronomy 18. Nor do I care if people recognize that the Greek and Hebrew terms for prophet are defined and used more broadly than just predicting the future. It isn't especially important that everyone knows that the cities Paul visited in Lyconia were within the Roman province of Galatia, either. Moreover, it is simply helpful, but not actually essential, to recognize that the internal evidence in Galatians, when compared to Acts, demonstrates that it was not only the first letter Paul wrote, but that he wrote it in response to the Jerusalem Summit, which in turn was seen as assault on his unique message and unsubstantiated credentials, especially as they were manifest during his initial missionary tour which included two Galatian towns.

And it is for these reasons, and many others, that I haven't bothered to weigh in on this forum debate. It doesn't matter what anyone concludes with regard to any of these issues. They are all on the periphery of the only issue which actually matters: should we believe Paul or trust Yahuweh?

Besides maintaining the Yada Yahweh Forum's primary purpose, that of supportive fellowship and Scriptural discussion, I want people have the opportunity to learn that most of what is written in the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul (and most especially Galatians and Romans) is opposed to Yahuweh's Torah and Yahushua's testimony. It is Paul vs. Yah--something informed and rational people have known for a very long time. Their messages cannot be reconciled.

But recognizing how long it took me to realize this, and how difficult it was for me to accept, I will continue to be open to any and all criticisms of the findings in The Great Galatians Debate Volume of Questioning Paul—at least so long as they are civil. I needed time and convincing, and so will others. Furthermore, before I came to accept this reality, I routinely dismissed all evidence to the contrary, usually by dismissing the qualifications and truthfulness of the messenger—so I can empathize with those who are critical of me.

But that does not make the Yada Yahweh Forum a place to promote personal agendas, other websites with dissenting views, or to demean others under the guise of “perusing the truth.” It is important that people know that Yada Yahweh was created as a place of fellowship for those dedicated to revealing and discussing Yahweh's message—while at the same time, exposing and condemning those messages which are opposed to Yah's purpose and plan.

And in that light, I want people to know that the Christian reliance the letters written to the assemblies in Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome lead them away from God and to their death. I want those who are searching for the truth to know that the letters claimed by and attributed to Paul are mostly false—with just enough truth to make them beguiling. What they do with that information, whether they ignore it, reject it, deal with it, or try to conceal it with clutter, is up to them.

So from that perspective, while the debate over the wolf, the apostle, the prophet, the author, the phrasing among letters, and my personal lack of qualifications, may be interesting, knowing the truth regarding these things isn’t going to save or enhance any lives. It isn’t worth the division and irritation these inflammatory posts are causing. Especially since, in the process, the life-changing, soul-saving, evidence contained in Yada Yahweh is being undermined by the tone and nature of these posts.

In conclusion, at least from my perspective, it is the errant message that permeates Galatians and Romans, and errors which are also found in Paul’s statements in Acts, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, which must be exposed and condemned before these lies claim ever more souls. Therefore, hopefully, the forum participants who want to increase their understanding, those who want to witness more effectively and accurately, especially to Christians, might be encouraged to focus on the differences between the writings claimed by and attributed to Paul and Yahuweh's Torah and Yahushua's testimony, while at the same time encouraging people to trust Yahuweh/Yahushua, when messages differ. If they do, all of this other "stuff" won’t matter, and what actually matters, will come to matter in people's lives.

Anything that stands in the way of the objective of observing Yahweh’s Word, preparing to be effective witnesses, and supporting one another, including demeaning posts and the promotion of other sites, is to be avoided. Therefore, based upon the negative tone currently permeating the Yada Yahweh Forum, the following rules apply:

1. Personal criticisms are not allowed between forum participants.

2. Impassioned forum discussions on topics unrelated to our salvation shall be very strongly discouraged. Save your passion for things which matter.

3. Books and sites which augment our understanding of Yahuweh’s Word may be referenced once, but never promoted. Ever.

4. Personal agendas and unique proclivities shall not be pursued. The stated purpose of the Yada Yahweh Forum is fellowship and Scriptural discussion.

5. If there is a disagreement on something essential to our understanding of Yahweh’s plan of salvation, minimize overtly critical rhetoric.

6. Try to avoid being divisive, at least in the sense of motivating forum participants to take sides.

Everyone is free of course to violate all of these standards, at least so long as they do so on their own sites and in their own private emails.

Yada



Note: When I attempt to post correspondence from Yada, transposing from HTML to straight text often causes me to miss things like paragraph indentations, typo's, etc. If you notice something that doesn't look right in the rendering, please let me know. Thanks for your help.

Edited by user Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:02:29 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Theophilus  
#2 Posted : Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:52:31 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Yada,

I'm hoping that there is a misunderstanding occurring here. I suspect that all concerned here desire that this forum fulfill the purpose Yada described as discussing the Scriptures in fellowship be achieved. While I know the person discussed in this post to be an eloquent communicator, I suspect that the abrasiveness detected is a result of the frustration in struggling to convey his specific points and were not intended as person insults and see evidence of this not included in the list of quotes above. To my understanding there is no argument here on the most crucial points Yada that are central to his purpose in writing QP; these being whether that the letters attributed to Paul are not inspired Scripture, and knowing this that Pauline doctrine as detailed in the letter to the Galatians is in conflict with Messiah's words and the Tanakh.

If my speculation is correct, I should think this is resolvable by clarifying the agreement on the basic points I mentioned and that personal insults were not intended and a less / non- abrasive means of discussing what appears to be in contrast secondary matters of importance can continue in genuine fellowship even if agreement doesn't result on these areas.

Shalom,

-Theophilus
Offline MadDog  
#3 Posted : Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:29:21 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Okay, I'll bite. Swalchy is intimidating considering his intellect. I make no bones about it and I consider myself far beneath Yada or Ken or Stevie when it comes to scripture. But, here is my beef. Stevie goes beyond "Questioning Paul" into "Defending Paul." Beyond a simple debate concerning scripture. Now, to be fair, I haven't read any of his commentaries.

But it isn't because I can't refute his words it is because I've refuted ALL Pauline doctrine long before I came to YY. I was so disgusted with Christianity because I couldn't reconcile Paul with Yahweh. And I turned away.

And now, along with Stevie and a two other individuals, who seem to want to poke and prod scripture as if they are just simply asking a question "to know the truth" are really setting you up for a beating.

No, I'm not as smart as Swalch, Yada or Ken about scripture, but I do know I rejected Christianity a long time ago and not because of YY. YY when it concerns Paul has finally made me realize what Christianity has wrong with Yahweh.
Offline Theophilus  
#4 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 4:55:50 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
MadDog, I think I know how you feel. I agree that Yada, Ken and Stephen are each extraordinarily insightful examiners of Scripture, from whom I've learned a great deal since I've encountered them, not to mention all that I've learned from the many posts from other forum contributors. I've checked on much of their work and found them to be sufficiently accurate or sensible so often that I hesitate from reflexively dismissing what any has to say without giving careful examination and have a clear understanding both of what they truly intend to communicate and where I disagree to have a sound basis to differ. While I think it would be a diversion to point out examples of this, none has been on salvation matters so can agree to disagree on secondary ones.

Did you take Stephen as defending orthodox Christianity, Pauline doctrine or that Paul's letters should be accepted as inspired Scripture and as such a refutation of the Torah or Messiah's high regard of the Torah? If so, I came away from his paper with just the opposite conclusions, and thought he was arguing for what Yada sees also as the secondary matters of the genuiness of authorship and to more accurately indite Paul as a flawed and fallible un-inspired Messianic teacher rather than a satanically inspired false prophet.

In either case - if both Yada and Stephen concur on not regarding Paul's letters (whether authentically of Paul or not) as not authoritative then the more immediate question to me is do you truly believe that Stephen sought to insult, demean or otherwise offend forum members while attempting to convey his points? It appears to me that his writing expresses his sense of frustration in clarifying just what his points were and in so doing caused ill hurt feelings among many reading his posts.

If I'm correct on this, I'll hope for a restoration of fellowship. If I'm in error, I'd hope to know this as well and better understand just why as well.

Respectfully,

-Theophilus
Offline shalom82  
#5 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 6:52:52 AM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I think that it is important that we realize the evidence of all this. It is obvious that we have lost forum members over this who have declared that they are done with this online fellowship because of the divisiveness and insults that were coming out of this debate. Some of our best posters who brought fresh insight and were coming here with love and in the spirit of fellowship felt that they were browbeaten and insulted. They have not been back. I can only imagine there are others who disengaged from the YY forum for what was going on...though they may have not made it known....just kinda slipped away gradually as they saw the writing on the wall. I know that I was thoroughly shocked by the comments that were being made...it was not just here or there indiscretion but a growing and consistent attitude of contempt and condescension that is not merely explained by frustration. Yes, frustration may have been part of it but frustration with who? Those little plebe intellects that just can't put their arms around the mighty girth of proficiency, skill and intelligence. The posts hardly disguised their disdain for the members of this forum that did not agree with the position that was being taken. Listen, long ago I made my position known on this whole Paul/Galatians issue. I said that we could agree on fundamentals, that we could agree that the Pauline letters were not scripture....that you could either discount them wholesale or take them with a grain of salt and not be in risk of damnation, WHATEVER THEIR AUTHORSHIP!!!!!!! that we should be discussing the weightier matters of scripture, discussing Tanakh, torah precepts/faithfulness and prophecy. I have nothing to hide about my position. For me this was resolved in my mind and heart a long time ago. I said my peace months ago and haven't engaged in this argument about Paul on any level. But I saw what happened to this family over it. I kept up with the posts and I saw the people who were hurt and insulted and long ago realized it became an argument for the sake of argument and I can say it was hardly anything more. It became a showpiece in my mind and I can only see such words as stupid, ludicrous, inane, uninformed and the like so many times before I feel it has become the general attitude towards the brothers and sisters on this forum. I saw apologies that were not sincere and always had to come with a caveat...this is especially bothersome to me....there are times when you simply just apologize...no excuses...no defensive explanations...you say you were in the wrong...why you were in the wrong and that you will try to improve yourself. I saw a complete inability to let go and when necessary turn the other cheek...that speaks of a maturity that has not caught up with the intellect however great. In a fellowship...maturity and the ability to abdicate ego are more important that how much koine greek you know or how good you are at textual criticism...how many times did people have to express their feelings...that they were being personally berated, that they were hurt, and felt insulted to get the picture that the tone and choice of words were causing problems? Were they wrong sometimes and was he right sometimes...I will go further....was he right all the time and were they wrong all the time....very well may be true....but this is a fellowship it is not a research university or a theological review. We sometimes have to let go of things for the sake of the whole to preserve brothers in love and in fellowship and there seemed to be a complete lack of interest or concern for that reality. I don't think it was a mere misunderstanding. I don't know what took place in the back channels if there was any correspondence or not but there certainly things that were said that should not have been said publicly and the only reason I can think why they were said was to discredit and tear down on a personal level. You do it once or twice and it is an indiscretion you do it more than that and it becomes a vendetta. In conclusion for now better than a month I can only say that I witnessed a lot of brain flexing and ostentatious erudition for the mere sake of it with a complete lack of love, sincerity and understanding. I believe if this had not been dealt with it would have destroyed the forum which is already in my opinion damaged.
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline Theophilus  
#6 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 9:00:26 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Shalom82,

Thank you for your comments. I find much hard truth in what you wrote, regardless of either what his true intentions were or the nature of the misunderstanding I preceived. Since as you pointed out people to include insightful contributing forum participants have felt demeaned and unwelcome on this forum, that is truly a problem that has injured the fellowship of this forum and jeprodizes it's health and mission if indeed its survival. I also conclud that apologies for the sake of fellowship that avoid mitigating justificatioins at least in my case took time and maturity to learn, and is not always related to one's intelligene. I think the matter now is to ensure that this forum return to being a productive fellowship, where we can be civil to one another evan on areas we disagree.

Respectfully,

-Theophilus

PS- see your PM
Offline Yada  
#7 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 3:33:16 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Hello Everyone - Yada just sent this to me and asked that I post it:

Quote:
Yada,

Wow! Unless I’m seeing this through rose-colored glasses, Shalom82 has nailed the problem boldly, clearly, correctly, and unambiguously. I do not know Shalom personally, but he or she is very wise.

And now that I have reread Shalom82’s post a second, third, and fourth time (more paragraph divisions would have made it easier for older folks like me to process it), I must say that it is one of the most articulate, accurate, and insightful evaluations of personal misconduct, the things which cause it and the consequence of it, that I have ever seen. Every word reads as if it were inspired by the Set-Apart Spirit of Yah. Amane, Amane. Amane.

As he or she wrote, it doesn't matter what personal flaw caused the offensive individuals to demean others, only that they it occurred so often it became a pattern and drove good people away. Making matters worse, in this particular case, one of these individuals routinely spoke down to people because he not only thought he was smarter than everyone else, but also because he could not tolerate anyone disagreeing with him—or even questioning him. And as Shalom said more eloquently than I, in a fellowship forum, treating people appropriately is every bit as important as communicating truthfully.

Shalom82 was right when he or she said (pardon me for not knowing) that the issues being debated in the offensive posts were essentially irrelevant. They were arguing for the sake of arguing. As proof that the issues raised were of no concern to me or anyone in the forum, every post I have read seems to agree on the only things which matter: Paul’s letters weren’t inspired, in many instances they are not true, Galatians and Romans are anti-Torah and thus anti Yahuweh, much of Pauline Doctrine is contrary to Yahshua's Sermon on the Mount, and the continued Christian reliance on these letters leads souls away from Yahweh’s Torah, Prophets, and Psalms—and thus salvation. So, there isn't any relevant point of disagreement, and if there were, that would have been fine—even commendable.

It's the attitude that was the issue, not the issues themselves. And as Shalom82 has stated, even if it were the issues, so long as the tone was civil, disagreements would have been completely acceptable. This is controversial material, and I would have expected far more disagreement then we have seen. More to the point, I would not have engaged in the forum even if every single forum participant disagreed completely with everything I wrote in Questioning Paul.

After all, I'm now the last person on earth to say "I'm right." I have just consumed a mountain of humble pie which will cost me a year's time correcting my mistakes in Yada Yahweh. I was completely wrong on Paul's credibility as well as the existence of the Renewed Covenant as recently as six months ago. Many forum contributors like MadDog and Shalom82 came to realize the truth about Paul long before I did. And yet they were patient with me, and gave me the time and space I needed to figure this out for myself. (Or more truthfully, people from around the world deluged me with a torrent of evidence I had never properly considered. So I can’t even take credit for my awakening. I was led to it by people I have never met.) And yet in hindsight, it might have been better if forum participants like MadDog and Shalom82 questioned me much earlier, and much more aggressively, as I might not have taken so long to correct my errant thinking.

In this regard, most of the constructive criticism I receive on Yada Yahweh, and on Questioning Paul, comes to me by way of email@YadaYahweh.com. I do my best to answer every letter, and very often make changes in the book based upon what I learn from others. Furthermore, those email exchanges can be posted by the recipient in the forum if they think they might be of interest to more than just the two of us. In this light, the entirety of Questioning Paulis little more than my response to a friend’s email. The recent rewrite of the Shabat chapter is also a response to an email question.

Returning to the issue at hand, Shalom82’s intuition was correct. Yada and I did not reveal everything we came to know about what has happened—especially behind the scenes. Frankly, we did not want to embarrass the offending individuals. But, suffice it to say for now, Yada personally called this individual, and tried to resolve the problem and restore the relationship privately and quietly. And yet, based upon the transcript of that conversation (one that the irritating individual has himself posted online), he was unapologetic, unwilling to accept responsibility, and was by his own admission harboring significant and unabated hostility. Yada asked him to communicate with me directly—something he refused to do. Instead, he and his friend went online and began promoting the myth that they were going to be banned because I couldn't handle being questioned. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least as it relates to me. As for them, being questioned is the very thing that seems to set them off.

After hearing what they had done, and reading the transcript of Yada’s attempt to salvage the relationship, I sent this individual a letter in hopes of getting him to change his tone—one he has ignored. It was then that we posted my forum response in hopes of saving the forum and returning it to a family environment where brothers and sisters are uplifted as they contemplate the depths of Yahuweh’s Word and Yahushua’s testimony.

I am sorry I waited so long. Many people brought this problem to my attention several months ago. My reasons for hesitating are immaterial, because good, Yahuweh loving people have been hurt. So, all I can say is: I am sorry! It was my mistake. I have learned another humbling lesson, but this time at the expense of others. I’m sorry.

Yada

Edited by user Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:08:19 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline J&M  
#8 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 9:37:50 PM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

Gentlemen

You have spent many column inches justifying the sacking of swalchy, but you sacked two people, do you mean to say that you have sacked Robski for the same aggressiveness, or just for association.

I really think you need to think about motivation here.

Your failure to to justify the sacking of Robsky for anything but 'opposition' and 'association' makes your case against swalchy rather hollow. I am in posession of most of the facts as I too have access to the 'other' documents. Selective editing, and interpretation of whether apologies are 'sincere' or not, strikes me as somewhat mendacious.

There are many abrasive entries on this forum, but there are not many that are critical of its principals. Think about it.

Offline MadDog  
#9 Posted : Friday, August 27, 2010 10:57:38 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Shalom,

To all, please lend me your ears. Let me start off by saying I am pulling an Obama by saying "Let me be Clear." When I said I rejected ALL Pauline doctrine I meant Christianity because I couldn't finger the culprit (i.e. Paul) until YY and Yadas' QP.

And I misspoke about Swalchy. I can not, most certainly, not refute any of his words because, and I think I can speak for all of us, that Paul does have slithers of truth throughout his letters. None of us is in dispute about that. However, Swalch along with Robski, who happen to live close enough and actually do have personal contact with each other isn't the problem but they do seem to be of the same mind on the forum.

At first I was going to chalk up the manners to cultural differences. I've lived overseas and in my personal experience I found that "Brits" have such a mastery of the English language that they can be so polite that they come off as rude to us Americans. However, what if a Brit "is" being rude?!?

I think Swalch is sincere about Yahweh, no doubt, and he is such an Egghead when it comes to scripture, but like I told him, he is missing the forrest for the trees. And yes I've meet bookworms and mental giants who do not have a lick of common sense. And no, Stevie has plenty of common sense by far, but there is some kind of trigger that sets him off when instead of Questioning Paul he defends him, I don't know, to be point of being too aggresive.

Also Yada hasn't disbanded them, only that they tone down the "tough talk" just a smidget.

I live in Texas and as far as I know I'm the only one within a hundred miles and maybe even a thousand miles who thinks like me. I wish I could have fellowship like Swalch and Robski, but I am in agreement with Shalom82. Us Knuckleheads who do not have thin skins are capable of taking a one or two jab on the chin. However, the New Kids on the Block, they may just bail when confronted with a rant about ancient Hebrew and Greek and how they just aren't educated enough to understand. Yah I can see that.
Offline bigritchie  
#10 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 6:23:26 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Hey, I just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

I hope people do realize that people on the forum when questioning Paul were not doing it just to annoy people or to make people mad.

The reason behind my questioning is this:

I think all of us know that anytime we present the 100% Pro-Torah Stance of the Messiah, and present the Torah as Forever and Everlasting as the Creator said, in every single case the first thing we hear is "But Paul says".

While I realize that Paul contradicts the Torah constantly, and half the time he does not even quote it correctly, as you all know, virtually all pew warmers have no idea of these things.

So my purpose was to have "ammo" for the "But Paul says" arguments to bring christians out of Babylon and save their souls. I want to be as informed as possible when speaking to someone and have all my bases covered. So if I offended anyone with my questions or comments, I do apologize as it was not my intent, it is just my attempt to wrap my mind around the entire situation and I want to be sure that when I fire my "guns" that I fire factual information and not my own opinion.
Offline shalom82  
#11 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 6:35:34 AM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
J&M
First off as I have said to others I have hardly been active on this forum during this whole debacle. I was merely a witness to what unfolded on the thread. I never once brought any of my concerns about what was happening to any of the admin or moderators or for that matter anyone. I was concerned and wondered how long this was going to go on, yes I will admit that, but I didn't think it was my place to say anything. Furthermore, I didn't write what I did to justify banning or sacking anyone be they robski or swalchy. As far as I know no one was banned and I certainly hope for reconcilliation and desire fellowship to be reestablished. I simply felt an overwhelming need to express what I felt and the impressions that I gathered from this seemingly never ending period. I was in league with no one and had been in contact with no one....neither party. As I said....due to my limited posting you could easily find the post where I declared my position about the whole Paul issue. I among others said let as agree on the fundamental issue, let us move on, let us discuss what matters. I am not sure of the exact date but I would have to imagine that was more than 2 months ago or better. And then in spite of the urging of several members on this forum the issue just spiraled out of control. Go ahead and look through...you won't see me engaged in that issue or taking sides in it. I was done long ago with this Paul/Galatians issue. It tortured me enough for too many years and when I found peace and closure I wasn't going to waste another second fretting about it. But yes as is my custom just about every day I go through and read all of the topics and posts and yes I did witness what was going on with the galatians debate. What I wrote was my impressions on what happened. You can accuse me of a lot of things. Perhaps I need to follow my own advice and practice more discretion....perhaps there are things that I shouldn't have said publicly. I realize that I should apologize. But why do you accuse me of being untruthful...or should I say "somewhat mendacious".
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline J&M  
#12 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 7:01:44 AM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

Shalom82

None of the post was aimed at YOU, Swalch and Robski have been 'banned' from the forum, and those behind the banning, and those at whom my abraisiveness is aimed know well who they are and why I am angry at the violation of my, and several other peoples privacy.

I apologise that this seemed in any way aimed at yourself, it was not. This is about the 'other' items mentioned in previous posts.

Robski has done nothing wrong, but has been found guilty by association. In that case so am I, and several others. I have visited with Robski several times over the last few months and with Swalchy once. I am therefore as guilty as Robski so please ban me as well....

My post was in order to see some kind of justice. If this forum is about TRUTH then so be it, it it is about 'touchy feely fellowship' at the expense of truth then I want no part of it, I can go to any church for that.
Offline Yada  
#13 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 8:00:16 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

My discussion with Swalchy was specifically designed to restore fellowship. I had witnessed the same unacceptable attitude Shalom had seen and did not want the forum to be destroyed as a result of his attitude. The only issue for me was his abrasive and demeaning tone. Period.

Having read Yada's private letter to Swalcy, I know that it was specifically designed to encourage him to accept responsibility for his inappropriate tone and to become more civil in his discussions. He and R were asked to refrain from using the forum until they changed their attitude toward others. The letter closed by saying that Yada wanted them back. But they still haven't bothered to respond to his email.

My suspension of their accounts was temporary, and was in direct response to the attitude they showed after my discussion with Swalchy.

The reason that Robskiwarrior was included is that he actually displayed a caustic side long before Swalchy did, and if you read his more recent posts, he has become Swalchy's apologist and spokesperson. They have made themselves inseparable. No one else's posts are being reviewed. And while I don't understand or agree with the point J&M has made critical of our motives in this (why he thinks this is about the issues they raised and the person they criticized, rather than their abrasive approach and tone), or why he thinks that including Rob somehow diminishes Swalcy's culpability, but he he is free to express his views so long as he is civil.

If Robskiwarrior thinks that he has been associated with Swalchy and his deteriorating attitude unfairly, then he should send Yada or I a note, and say so. So long as he is willing to comply with the guidelines for the forum, he is welcome back. He has provided many great posts over the past year, and we'd all benefit from his thoughts. It is as simple as that.

So, Swalchy and Robskiwarrior are welcome back at any time. We'd love to have them back. But reconciliation will occur once they agree to follow the guidelines Yada recently posted as they reflect our original thoughts on how the forum might best serve as a place of supportive fellowship where the important issues regarding Yahweh's Word could be discussed among brothers and sisters.
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline J&M  
#14 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 8:23:14 AM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

Yada

You will of course be giving us examples of Robski's "caustic side" as you did for Swalchy, and please, in context and with no edits.

Whatever the crimes of these two young men, I cannot help but feel there is an element of tyranny working here. Your post contains a lot of opinion but little substance.

It seems very strange to me that the only people being banned are those who disagree. This should worry everybody, and thus I request that you carefully substantiate the charges you have made against Robski.

Offline Yada  
#15 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 8:29:48 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

J&M - I read your posts and I'm still trying to understand how your "privacy" was violated. I actually tried to speak with the Swalchy regarding this matter privately first, but was then told that he had posted the conversation in the public domain. Who's privacy (and trust) was violated?
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline J&M  
#16 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 8:57:08 AM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

"Yada and I did not reveal everything we came to know about what has happened—especially behind the scenes."

This 'behind the scenes' would appear to involve the reporting back of private information gleaned from other forums as a breach of trust and privacy.

Robsky, Swalchy and I all make our livings from computer technical know how. Every time anyone hits a website it leaves a trail.
Offline Yada  
#17 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 3:32:40 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Yada and I have been consulting together regarding this situation and, as a result, Yada asked me to post the following:

Quote:
Please accept my apology for being slow to respond to the “somewhat mendacious” and “abrasive” allegations posted by J&M. I’m suffering from singles, so for the next month, this “tyrant’s” time at the keyboard will be limited by my ability to tolerate pain. Further, the only reason I am writing this reply now is that it is obvious that J&M is speaking for Swalchy—the person who was temporarily suspended for his abrasiveness.

J&M wrote: “Gentlemen, You have spent many column inches justifying the sacking of swalchy, yes, I but you sacked two people, do you mean to say that you have sacked Robski for the same aggressiveness, or just for association. I really think you need to think about motivation here. Your failure to to justify the sacking of Robsky for anything but 'opposition' and 'association' makes your case against swalchy rather hollow. I am in posession of most of the facts as I too have access to the 'other' documents. Selective editing, and interpretation of whether apologies are 'sincere' or not, strikes me as somewhat mendacious. There are many abrasive entries on this forum, but there are not many that are critical of its principals. Think about it.”

To begin, why be misleading? Based upon the opening line which speaks of “many column inches justifying the sacking of swalchy,” this post was improperly addressed, “Gentlemen” when it was actually written to accuse me, instead of Swalchy, for his current status relative to the forum. This assessment was then driven home unambiguously in J&M’s response to Shalom. Although I find it telling that he wrote that “none of the post was aimed at YOU,” speaking of Shalom, especially since Shalom’s assessment of this situation is the antithesis of his own.

Shalom wrote: “I think that it is important that we realize the evidence of all this. It is obvious that we have lost forum members over this who have declared that they are done with this online fellowship because of the divisiveness and insults that were coming out of this debate. Some of our best posters who brought fresh insight and were coming here with love and in the spirit of fellowship felt that they were browbeaten and insulted. They have not been back. I can only imagine there are others who disengaged from the YY forum for what was going on...though they may have not made it known....just kinda slipped away gradually as they saw the writing on the wall.”

Stephen was asked to refrain from using the forum because his attitude was horrid. Had I not intervened, more and more people would have left our fellowship. He is welcome back the moment he is willing to clean up his act.

Shalom continued: “I know that I was thoroughly shocked by the comments that were being made...it was not just here or there indiscretion but a growing and consistent attitude of contempt and condescension that is not merely explained by frustration.” The sole motivation for the temporary suspension was “a growing and consistent attitude of contempt and condensation.” That is not what J&M, Swalchy, or Robskiwarrior want to hear, but it is the truth.

Reminding us that Swalchy and Robskiwarrior spoke in consort, Shalom wrote: “Yes, frustration may have been part of it but frustration with who? Those little plebe intellects [plural] that just can't put their arms around the mighty girth of proficiency, skill and intelligence. The posts hardly disguised their [plural] disdain for the members of this forum that did not agree with the position that was being taken.” Robskiwarrior, by his own admission, routinely defended Swalchy, which became inappropriate because Swalchy was inappropriate.

While we will return to Shalom’s wisdom in a moment, based upon J&M’s non sequitur, “your failure to to justify the sacking of Robsky…makes your case against swalchy rather hollow,” and the statement “you really need to think about your motivation here,” it suggests that he is being disingenuous. His concern over Robskiwarrior’s current status was simply a smokescreen to criticize me. He paid no attention to the lengthy justifications for Swalchy’s suspension. And worse, J&M is now parroting Swalchy’s mythological defense.

First, I did not ban anyone, including Robskiwarrior. I simply asked that these two individuals refrain from using the forum until they agree to behave better. That is not to say that they haven’t been temporarily suspended; they were, but not by me or as a result of my instructions.

Second, although J&M is eager to question my “motivation,” Robskiwarrior’s current status has no bearing on the reasons Swalchy was suspended. As Shalom has said, “the evidence of all of this…is obvious.” Swalchy was “divisive and insulting.” He was guilty of “browbeating” good people, driving them away from the forum. His comments “were shocking,” and the “indiscretion” was “a growing and consistent attitude of contempt and condescension.”

Robskiwarrior’s posts were seldom if ever condescending. He actually writes beautifully. I’d love to have him back. But there is no missing the fact that Robskiwarrior became Swalchy’s principle apologist and promoter. And had Swalchy been civil, that would have been fine. But as the primary spokesperson and defender of someone who has become so universally irritating and insulting, Robskiwarrior associated himself with the problem. And that is why Shalom wrote: “The posts hardly disguised their [plural] disdain for the members of this forum that did not agree with the position that was being taken.” In legal terms, Robskiwarrior served as an accessory to the crime he ultimately aided and abetted.

Third, I would not have asked Robskiwarrior to temporarily refrain from using the forum had Yada not been told about Robskiwarrior’s involvement in an online chatroom discussion the day following Yada’s private conversation with Swalchy. It was there, Yada was informed by a mutual friend, that they developed the strategy which is now being manifest in J&M’s posts. Rather than Swalchy accepting responsibility for his inappropriate behavior, they have attempted to blame their anticipated suspensions on me, saying that it would occur because I “was afraid of being questioned.” It is the same allegation that J&M is now making on behalf of Swalchy and Robskiwarrior—all in spite of the considerable evidence to the contrary.

Fourth, Robskiwarrior acknowledges that he often lacks self control. He wrote this himself in one of his posts. I first spoke to him about the problem after one of the Yada Yahweh Radio programs where he became overly heated. And I came to recognize that he was driving Swalchy’s change in attitude, not just supporting it, during several personal email exchanges I had with him many months ago. So there is a lot more here than just a casual “association.” These things known, so long as Robskiwarrior doesn’t act as J&M is now acting, he is welcome back. The temporary suspension will be lifted.

J&M wrote: “I am in posession of most of the facts as I too have access to the 'other' documents. Selective editing, and interpretation of whether apologies are 'sincere' or not, strikes me as somewhat mendacious.” And yet I dare say, based upon the whole of his posts, even if he was “in possession of most of the facts,” he haven’t possessed them objectively. And I don’t know what “‘other’ documents” he is referring to.

I can only assume that Swalchy, using J&M, is accusing me of “selective editing” because I copied and pasted the offensive parts of Swalchy’s posts in my response, rather than the entirety of those posts. But that was the stated purpose. I don’t have any issue with his issues, only with his attitude. If I had retained his arguments, it would have made my response countless “column inches longer,” without “justification,” and it would have given the wrong impression.

To quote Shalom again: “I kept up with the posts and I saw the people who were hurt and insulted and long ago realized it became an argument for the sake of argument and I can say it was hardly anything more. It became a showpiece in my mind and I can only see such words as stupid, ludicrous, inane, uninformed and the like so many times before I feel it has become the general attitude towards the brothers and sisters on this forum. I saw apologies that were not sincere and always had to come with a caveat...this is especially bothersome to me....there are times when you simply just apologize...no excuses...no defensive explanations...you say you were in the wrong...why you were in the wrong and that you will try to improve yourself. I saw a complete inability to let go and when necessary turn the other cheek...that speaks of a maturity that has not caught up with the intellect however great. In a fellowship...maturity and the ability to abdicate ego are more important that how much koine greek you know or how good you are at textual criticism...how many times did people have to express their feelings...that they were being personally berated, that they were hurt, and felt insulted to get the picture that the tone and choice of words were causing problems? Were they wrong sometimes and was he right sometimes...I will go further....was he right all the time and were they wrong all the time....very well may be true....but this is a fellowship it is not a research university or a theological review. We sometimes have to let go of things for the sake of the whole to preserve brothers in love and in fellowship and there seemed to be a complete lack of interest or concern for that reality. I don't think it was a mere misunderstanding. I don't know what took place in the back channels if there was any correspondence or not but there certainly things that were said that should not have been said publicly and the only reason I can think why they were said was to discredit and tear down on a personal level. You do it once or twice and it is an indiscretion you do it more than that and it becomes a vendetta.”

Contrary to what J&M alleged, I did not “interpret” Swalchy’s inappropriate comments, nor did I attempt to ascertain if “apologies were ‘sincere’ or not.” Shalom did both of these things, and he was right. So, while J&M, perhaps on behalf of Swalchy, was trying to call me “mendacious” (defined on Google as “an intentionally untruthful, beguiling, and dishonest person), the reason Shalom took offense to his post, is that he was “mendacious” in his response to Shalom’s interpretations—all of which I found to be accurate. This kind of oversight on J&M’s part suggests that he would be wise to take a step back, cool off, consider the evidence, and then take a different approach before he incriminates himself further.

Completing his first post, J&M tried to reinforce the idea that Swalchy was suspended, not for his abrasiveness, but instead because he was “critical of its principals.” Beyond the fact that he meant “principal,” not “principals,” and indeed meant, Yada, J&M has done little more than parrot Swalchy’s current position. He wants everyone to believe that it was the content and quality of his arguments, and my fear of being questioned, not his condescending attitude and demeaning tone that got him suspended.

Moving on, in J&M’s next post, he wrote: “Shalom82, None of the post was aimed at YOU, Swalch and Robski have been 'banned' from the forum, and those behind the banning, and those at whom my abraisiveness is aimed know well who they are and why I am angry at the violation of my, and several other peoples privacy. I apologise that this seemed in any way aimed at yourself, it was not. This is about the 'other' items mentioned in previous posts.

Robski has done nothing wrong, but has been found guilty by association. In that case so am I, and several others. I have visited with Robski several times over the last few months and with Swalchy once. I am therefore as guilty as Robski so please ban me as well....

My post was in order to see some kind of justice. If this forum is about TRUTH then so be it, it it is about 'touchy feely fellowship' at the expense of truth then I want no part of it, I can go to any church for that.”

As I have already pointed out, while J&M may simply have been confused and overly agitated, much of his first “post was aimed” at Shalom’s comments. It was Shalom, and not Yada, who wrote the things he labeled “mendacious.”

As a result of Swalchy’s “abrasiveness” we wrote guidelines for participating in the forum, and yet J&M has openly acknowledged that his post was designed to be “abrasive,” and worse, “that those at whom my abrasiveness is aimed know well who they are.” So, what are we to do with J&M? He has just admitted that he has intentionally violated the first guideline relative to forum participation. He has deliberately put me in the position of either ignoring the forum guidelines and rendering them moot by ignoring his affront to them, or suspending him. If I do the first, the forum will be destroyed. If I do the second, he, Swalchy, and Robskiwarrior will gloat that they were right.

J&M said that he was “angry at the violation of my, and several other peoples privacy.” And yet, no one violated his privacy. I don’t even know who J&M is. Until today, I had never even read one of his posts. Further, neither Yada nor I violated anyone’s privacy. Yada had a private conversation with Swalchy, which Swalchy not Yada, posted online. Neither Yada nor I have disclosed anything J&M, Swalchy, or Robskiwarrior has written or spoken to us privately. Moreover, neither Yada nor I have gone to any forum, blog, or chatroom associated with any of them, nor listened in on any conversation they may of had. We were, however, told by someone who participated in the chatroom’s open, public discussion the day following Yada’s private conversation, that a transcript had been posted online by Swalchy and that “they,” speaking of Swalchy and Robskiwarrior, were attempting to convince Yada Yahweh Forum members that their anticipated suspension would be because “Yada was afraid of being questioned,” and not as a result of their behavior.

So “Robsky, Swalchy, and [J&M]” won’t need to rely upon their “computer technical know how” to ascertain “what happened behind the scenes” or who “gleaned private information from other forums as a breach of trust and privacy.” Neither Yada nor I did so. They did it to themselves.

Let’s be absolutely clear: there is nothing wrong with Robskiwarrior’s posts. So, if he can bring himself to stop promoting Swalchy, and thereby refrain from encouraging his abrasiveness, he is welcome back. That is unless he is now guilty of transferring blame from Swalchy to me, as J&M is doing. The Yada Yahweh Forum cannot be saved if those who nearly destroyed it are unwilling to be accountable for our behavior and change.

But make no mistake, when someone routinely speaks on behalf of someone who is driving good people away from the fellowship of the forum, they have “associated” themselves with them—something Shalom stated more eloquently than I. Further, to infer that “visiting” with someone is akin to promoting and encouraging them is not reasonable. If J&M is banned, it will be for his deliberate abrasiveness, not for his causal contacts.

I must say however, that like Shalom, I am disappointed to see people attack others under the guise of “seeking justice,” and “TRUTH.” So, based upon the line, “My post was in order to see some kind of justice. If this forum is about TRUTH then so be it, it it is about 'touchy feely fellowship' at the expense of truth then I want no part of it, I can go to any church for that,” J&M may have his wish. But unfortunately, it will not before the damage has already been done. To quote Shalom once again: “In conclusion for now better than a month I can only say that I witnessed a lot of brain flexing and ostentatious erudition for the mere sake of it with a complete lack of love, sincerity and understanding. I believe if this had not been dealt with it would have destroyed the forum which is already in my opinion damaged.”

Moving on to J&M’s third post, the “tyranny” allegation is so over the top, I’m amazed that he wrote: “I cannot help but feel there is an element of tyranny working here.” And it is equally amazing that he, perhaps on behalf of Swalchy, could dismiss my nine-page response, a third of which was devoted to presenting the “substance” of Swalchy’s offense statements, with: “Your post contains a lot of opinion but little substance.”

And it is this same lack of appropriateness that is manifest in J&M’s concluding statement: “It seems very strange to me that the only people being banned are those who disagree.” While it wouldn’t matter if they had, to the extent of my knowledge, no one in the forum has “disagreed” with me regarding anything I care anything about. So, it seems strange to me that he would parrot such a nonsensical allegation.

Perhaps someday, J&M, Swalchy, and Robskiwarrior will be able to accept responsibility for the “abrasiveness,” they have displayed and encouraged in the Yada Yahweh Forum. Hopefully they will learn that fellowship and truth are not mutually exclusive. More than anything, I pray that they quietly ponder the wisdom contained in Shalom’s insightful evaluation of their behavior. And should they be willing to change their tone, all of us will welcome all of them back with open arms.

Yada


If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline Noach  
#18 Posted : Saturday, August 28, 2010 8:03:35 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

I have been on this forum for a long time and really can't believe what is going on here. This goofiness is certainly not what this forum was created for. Yada, while I commend you for your thoughtful response, you certainly don't owe this group anything. You have provided a service for fellowship that has turned into hurt feelings for someone none of us know anyway (Paul). I certainly don't know who Paul is, I don't even know if he actually existed. All I know is the letters attributed to him suck. The least this guy could do if he is going to claim to be an apostle is write half way decent. Why get hostile to others for this guy none of us know, who couldn't write his way out of a kindergarten class? The Christian religion loves this guy. If you guys love him too, that's fine but lets not get abrasive over this. If you like Paul's writing, that's fine, but realize there are others out there who can't figure out a thing he's trying to say. Maybe were just not on Paul's spiritual level, but I could care less about Paul's letters and to see them causing so much "disagreement" is ridiculous to me. Let's move on.

Noah



Offline RidesWithYah  
#19 Posted : Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:03:43 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

I've seen this too many times, in too many forums.
Administrators often aren't comfortable with the decisions they feel they are forced to make,
and end up over-explaining.

It's a tough balance between letting people be heard, and justifying/debating/defending moderation decisions.
Sometimes it's best to simply state what actions were taken, and the reasons (in generalities, not specifics) so other posters know how to stay off the poo-poo list.
Otherwise the decisions are debated, second guessed, and as we say in the states, "monday morning quarterbacked".

We may not agree with the decision, but a quick end lets the healing begin --
especially when the "discipline" is a temporary timeout.

Could someone please lock this thread, so we can move forward, and hope our friends return?

In His Love.
Offline Yada  
#20 Posted : Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:26:18 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Good advice RWY. Thanks.
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.