A couple points of clarification:

1. I know QRD is Croix, but I'm basically giving him another chance. But he needs to behave himself. If I find myself having to spend much time (>1 minute every 2 days) moderating his posts, cleaning up his messes, etc. I'm going to ban him. I don't have time for that, especially with a new job starting tomorrow.

2. I never banned all videos of "the hebrew israelites" because that would include videos from Pastor Joe Fox as well. The latter is a much better character, in my opinion, with much more to teach, more mature, more prudent, etc. Croix was posting TOO MANY videos, of Pastor Dowell. That was what I said "NO MORE" to. Paster Dowell is NOT the same as Pastor Joe Fox, even though they are on good terms with each other and in the same religion.

With regards to Pastor Fox: In my opinion, the occasional "supernatural insanity" is outweighed by the sheer volume of good advice, thoughts, philosophizing, and training offered by Pastor Fox's videos. Pastor Fox is ex-special forces and has been into preparedness and survival since the 1980's. He is able to professionally train people in a huge variety of topics. So he has a lot of sage advice.

Pastor Dowell got too much into relationships. Plus he strongly hinted that he wanted to get married to a 2nd (younger) wife to "have another shot" at having children who weren't lost. His first attempt at a family ended with his kids all flying the coop and none of them have religion to speak of.

Pastor Joe Fox was married for 35+ years to the same woman, had 3 kids, and all of them are still of his religion. So he's obviously a better man/father in general -- at least more prudent, smarter, etc.

1. I know QRD is Croix, but I'm basically giving him another chance. But he needs to behave himself. If I find myself having to spend much time (>1 minute every 2 days) moderating his posts, cleaning up his messes, etc. I'm going to ban him. I don't have time for that, especially with a new job starting tomorrow.

Thanks.

Should I start posting as Quid or Croix from here on out?

If my Croix account gets unblocked, should I let other people decide if they want me to post as Croix or Quid? Not that it really matters, but I'll go with whatever you all decide.

Congrats on your new job.

And thank you, Jaynek.

Indeed V.W.3, how about that concubine thing?

I have no idea. You’ll have to ask quid for references, but he mentioned something about church approval when I was upset over him being mean to seraphina. It’s in the thread “why we don’t need SSPX”.




I agree with Jayne. It just matter at this point. I also don’t mind him adding color to the board with his topics... just so long as everyone is nice. I know I’ve lost my temper with him quite a few times. So, he really isn’t the only one to blame. I’ve also come
To see if I don’t agree with him on something to just avoid the topic all
Together. So I won’t comment on threads we don’t agree with each other on things.




Matthew, congratulations on your job! I’ve been praying for you since your post. I’m happy to hear for your family!

"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).

I think people need some historical background to understand this.  It was written around 400 AD, when the word concubine had a wider meaning than it does now.  It could refer to either licit and illicit relationships.  The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "concubinage" explains:

The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church, who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriagepermanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).

The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001). The refractory are to be excommunicated until such time as they shall obey and do penance.

Here's my issue.  Had Croix just e-mailed you and said, "Hey, Matthew, please give me another chance; I promise to behave." ... that would be one thing.  But he snuck back onto the board ... so to speak, illegally.  There's an analogy here to be made with illegal immigration.

Some leftist at my office was pontificating aloud about how people who are against illegal immigration "hate people".  I couldn't take that, so I went after her.  I said that I'm in favor of TRIPLING the legal immigration quotas ... provided the economy can sustain them, so that the people immigrating have something good to come to.

In any case, the issue isn't immigration but, rather, ILLEGAL immigration ... and issues of national sovereignty and rule of law.

So I have a problem with Matthew granting legalization/immunity to the rule-breaker.  That undermines the rule of law (such as it is) on the forum.

Creating a new account without permission after a ban should be an ipso facto ban on the new account.

I would ban Quid/Croix, put him on a month-long hiatus/suspension, and then have him petition to return after that time ... when he would return as Croix.

It should just be respected that Matthew said he can stay. The conversation should end there.....

So it is not a close analogy to illegal immigrants who are disobeying explicit laws.

Wrong ... as usual.  Despite your usual self-righteous arrogance, 90% of the time you miss the mark in your arguments.  Not all rules need to be explicit, but are a reflection of the law-giver.  Once the law-giver bans someone, it's clearly contrary to his intention for someone to simply create a new account and return.  But at one point, yes, Matthew did call this out as inappropriate (when some others tried it) and imposed ipso facto bans against them.  Obviously, if Matthew wants to allow someone to flaunt his intention to ban them, then it's on him.  I'm just calling it out and saying that I would not tolerate that were I running the forum.