Screenname: JAG Grievance against: Yves The first infraction Yves levied against me was for this post:

"Whatever Christian disagrees with the physical resurrection has 99.99% of all theologians who have ever lived against them. I won't waste my time on such an irrational, illogical, and heretical conclusion." He said I broke rule #2, which states: Posts bashing God, Christians, or other members are not allowed. Bashing includes questioning another members salvation, name-calling, slander, gossip, or verbally attacking another member/subject. I challenge Yves to back up how my post actually broke this rule. He seems to have a beef with the word heretical, which is fine and dandy, but the last time I checked its not a curse word forbidden by the filter system. Its a word that means: Dissident: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards. Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn To deny that the physical resurrection never took place is indeed a heretical conclusion by the very definition of the word. Yves tried to back up his position by saying he had to keep people from calling another member a bigot earlier, thus he has to keep me from calling a conclusion heretical. A) Those arent even related. Why on Earth would another persons issues affect mine? B) I didnt even call the person a heretic, merely his conclusion (which is unlike calling someone a bigot) Furthermore, my little post actually sparked a forum wide change in policy where the actual statement of faith was finally enacted. As such, the infraction should have been removed at that point not doing so is tantamount to acquitting a suspected thief, but still making him serve his prison sentence. The second infraction Yves levied against me was for this post: "And now I know you are capable of lying. If you had read it you'd know 99 percent of what you wrote about Horace (and Isis for that matter) was BS. Have fun: http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/index.htm" This post was in response to a member who had stated the following about The Book of the Dead:

"Written in 1280 BC, The Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus... Horus is the son of the god Osiris... born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer... who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert... Healed the sick... The blind... Cast out demons... And walked on water... He raised Asar from the dead. 'Asar' translates to 'Lazarus'. Oh yeah, he also had 12 disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first... And after 3 days, two women announced... Horus, the savior of humanity... had been resurrected. Which is incorrect information. Isis was not a virgin, and Horace didnt do the majority of the things that member stated he did. I gave this warning post: Have you read "The Book of the Dead?" I'm going to ask that before going on. If you have read it, surely, you'd see the stark contrast between the gospels and it. To which the other member replied he had, indeed, read The Book of the Dead. I pointed out he was dishonest: "And now I know you are capable of lying. If you had read it you'd know 99 percent of what you wrote about Horace (and Isis for that matter) was BS. Have fun: http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/index.htm" Not only did I point it out, but I gave damning proof that he had lied by citing the source. Yet, Yves gave me the infraction. Since when do we not care when people knowingly try to deceive every single person on our forum by falsifying information? Its one thing for him to say, oh no, I read it on a blog, I havent actually read the Book of the Dead. Its an entirely different thing to state that it was true because the manuscripts actually contain those facts, when they dont! Yet, Yves would rather save face than get into confrontation. His way of solving problems is avoidance, thats good and well, but not helpful under these circumstances. So now what? The word lying should be censored too? We should sacrifice truth in order to make a liar not feel bad about doing something wrong? I have no idea what culture Yves grew up in, but its backwards when it comes to handling dishonesty. I can prove that last statement biblically even. Strong language should always be used when confronting deceptive people. There is great biblical precedent found throughout the entirety of scriptures for this. What did Isaiah say to the prophets of Baal as they cried out to their false god? At noon Elijah began to taunt them. Shout louder! he said. Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be

awakened. So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed - 1 Kings 18:25-29 What did Jesus say to the Pharisees who knowingly tried to deceive the people? He called them hypocrites. What did Paul say about false teachers? These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead. They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanksgiving by people who know and believe the truth. 1 Timothy 4:2 In another passage Paul tells an entire group of judiazers, who were teaching false things, to cut off their penises for goodness sakes. My point? If any of these men were walking today and pointed out the dishonesty of a person in the same manner I did (which was absolutely nothing compared to Isaiah, Jesus, or Paul) Yves would give them an infraction. It shows something is wrong with his judgment, or that he is just terribly biased against me (which would make sense seeing as he is the only moderator to have given me the 3 infractions Ive incurred thus far). I wont get into how his edits of my posts completely destroy the intent of them now, but thats just careless. How can it be fixed? Make a rule that protects people who want to lie, then be given a chance to recant their lie, and still continue to lie. Write it down on paper, because that is what Yves is vying for in this situation, and at least then I can be happy knowing that corruption is embraced formally and that the staff, collectively, really would rather protect emotions over truth.