Appeal 843 - Forum Ban

[total relism]

I was hoping to appeal a ban I was given by God-Emperor of Mankind

Dear total relism,

You have been banned from the following forum:
Discussion and Debate

Release: January 08, 2014 09:38 PM
Reason:
Due to defying moderators

-God-Emperor of Mankind
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/priva...m&pmid=3291042



Given on
January 08, 2013, 03:39 PM

[Jom]

Could we have the details of the ban and how total relism defied a moderator, please?

[Gigantus]

It's a bit long winded, but I think this response of mine (from a previous discussion) may help:

Part 1

PMs to you, Dec 2011:

You've been PMed many times about how you format your posts, and yet you continue to simply copy and paste huge walls of text interspersed with hyperlinks to websites of dubious worth. Please consider this your final warning - no more mass copy and pasting from other websites because it is not only extremely hard to read, but you are not even making an effort to argue properly, as you are simply swamping the other side with (mis)information that isn't even authored by you. If you don't stop, I will issue a forum ban from the Discussion and Debate forums so that you are unable to disrupt discussion there in future.

Originally Posted by total relism
how than can I say copy a verse off internet and make it same letter type? I try to copy over so its all same fant etc does not work.
You can't because we are asking you not to copy and paste off the internet. There is a way, you need to edit your BB codes. This site automatically posts in whatever font you copy and pasted from. For now don't even worry about that. You really need to start worrying about discussing and debating in your own words. You use far to many passages of the internet for us to consider that a debate. I was also informed by Jom that he has spoken to you as well. If he finds more copy and pasting from this day forward from you I believe he is going to restrict your posting the the D&D. You may want to have a chat with him.

It's not as if you have been posting that way since yesterday - you have a long history of simply doing a copy\paste of huge articles you find on the net. You then fail to add your own view to it.
You got suspended for doing it once before, apparently you didn't learn anything from it according to this recent PM exchange:

Spoiler for the first PM: 

I see no link to the site where you got the information from.

I am sorry you find the format confusing, could you link me to were that is against forum rules if one person finds a op confusing.

Hard-to-Read Posts (1 or 2 points)

Posts that disrupt the message boards for other users, intentional or not, are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited, to:

Conducting conversations in languages other than English. The exception is in forums explicitly designated for a specific language other than English.
Posting excessively in capital letters, leet speak, or other hard-to-read writing styles
Using misleading topic titles
Consecutive posting. (I.e., double posts, triple posts)

You have been told about this from Visna that I can see from your record. This has not changed since she gave you that note.

How would you have suggested a format it?. Also perhaps there could be a pm telling me these things or what I could do to reformat before a ban

Had this been a first time thing then yes we would have told you but it is not.
You know how to use the quote button so again, no excuse.

I indeed give much thoght of my own, but the whole point of OP is what the bible says on the subject, not my own interpretation. Please tell me were we cant use quotes in OP

Quotes are meant to be used to support your argument or using your own interpretation to discuss a quote.
If you want to discuss hell then [U]you[discuss hell using your own words and interpretations /U] using quotes as support for them.
Posting quotes is not a debate, you have been told about this.

So because you believe someone posted on topic [clearly they did not and I responded to them anyways] and I said they were off topic, I am banned?. Could you show me the rule on this as well?.

Disruptive Posting (1, 3, or 6 Points)

Any post(s) designed to disrupt the flow of conversation, radically change the topic of the thread or elicit a response that violates these Terms of Service.
If a member is posting on-topic, you saying that they are off-topic over and over again even when they use your own quotes to prove that it is on-topic and yet you persist with it then yes you are distrupting the flow of the debate.
I see in both of the threads people posting on-topic which you ignore or indeed claim they are off-topic. I see one case where a protestant is posting and you are trying to pass him off as a mormon even tho he clearly stated that he wasn't.
Again, that's distruptive.

May I bring point six of the debating rules to your attention? And here the discussion based on your suspension note:

Spoiler for the suspension PM: 

Dear total relism,

You have been banned from the following forum:
Discussion and Debate

Release: January 08, 2014 09:38 PM
Reason:
Due to defying moderators

-God-Emperor of Mankind

could you tell me please when I have done so?

Your two threads that you made recently

what did i not reference in your opinion?

Well for example in your Jesus thread, parts of your OP comes from this website http://www.newchristian.org.uk/helldefended.html which you never linked to or even mentioned. The format of your OPs is confusing and hard to read, there doesn't seem to be any thought of your own, only quotes which is not allowed either when it comes to making a OP.
And then we got several cases of you dismissing other people's posts as Off-topic or that they are not quoting you when they were on-topic and were quoting you. Needless to say that this is very poor form and highly distruptive and makes it seem that you have no interest in actually debating with people.

Naturally this is nothing new. You did the exact same thing last time you got forumbanned.

I indeed references william lane craig in my OP, please read it again carefully, he is the author of the article and i gave his name.

I am sorry you find the format confusing, could you link me to were that is against forum rules if one person finds a op confusing. How would you have suggested a format it?. Also perhaps there could be a pm telling me these things or what I could do to reformat before a ban. I indeed give much thoght of my own, but the whole point of OP is what the bible says on the subject, not my own interpretation. Please tell me were we cant use quotes in OP, I have never seen this anywhere and half the forum should be banned as people do so all the time. So because you believe someone posted on topic [clearly they did not and I responded to them anyways] and I said they were off topic, I am banned?. Could you show me the rule on this as well?.

You did notice the use of spoilers, I presume? Instead of a mile long post?

----------------------------------------

Further response in the discussion:

Part 2

Your recent thread in the D&D named "How could a loving god send people to Hell?" is a duplicate of your thread in November in the E&M forum titled "The bible allows slavery,Jesus did not claim to be god [abbr]" - that's already a violation of the 'off topic' rule. That one got closed for 'To much copy-paste going on and not enough discussion.'
Both threads were a copy\paste affair of an article found here, presented as your own product. That violates the aforementioned rule 6 of the debate rules as well as the 'impersonation' rule. Using the same modus operandi when responding within the thread got the original one closed.
Incidentally this is also a copy of your thread at the ORG, probably the one Pannonian was referring to.
In the "How could a loving god[abbr]" thread you kept on arguing by copy\pasting parts of of articles without linking\attributing to it's source as well as countering arguments by just 'read the OP'.
Creating a circular reference in an argument by referring questions to the OP is pointless, obviously the question is about the OP. If you are not willing to respond to questions then it has to be assumed that you are merely proselytizing, something that hasn't got a place in the discussion forums.

----------------------------
More conversation:


So let me ask a simple question: have you, or haven't you, continued in the same posting style (multiple times after the lifting of your ban) that you were told you stop?

Remember this note?

Hello total relism

You have been asked, repeatedly, to post properly. That means keeping your posts to one size, one font, one color and putting quotes from external sites in quote tags.
Your posts are ridiculously hard to read, and this is your last chance before the warning points start coming.
The Debating Forum Rules are available here and the relevant section of the ToS is available here.

If you have any questions, I'm only a PM away.

Kind regards,
Visna

Or this one?

Hi total relism,

In future, when you copy and paste from another website onto TWC, particularly for the reason of providing arguments in the D&D section, could you insert the quotation in tags and also provide a link to your source, please, as you seem a little too fond of simply copying and pasting from other sites for your arguments.

Regards,
Jom

A PM from November 2011

Hi total relism,

You've been PMed many times about how you format your posts, and yet you continue to simply copy and paste huge walls of text interspersed with hyperlinks to websites of dubious worth. Please consider this your final warning - no more mass copy and pasting from other websites because it is not only extremely hard to read, but you are not even making an effort to argue properly, as you are simply swamping the other side with (mis)information that isn't even authored by you. If you don't stop, I will issue a forum ban from the Discussion and Debate forums so that you are unable to disrupt discussion there in future.

Regards,
Jom

This is a PM exchange dating back to November 2009:

hi i was wondering what i have to do to get the creation vs evolution post back on?

i know know how to use spoilers and how to qutoe corectley

thanks

If I were to reopen the thread, you would need to post clear and within the rules:

• all member posts in quote tags
• all of your comments clearly not within quote tags
• do not use odd color or fonts that make the posts hard to read
• use the spoiler tags to keep long quoted material from stretching the thread page
• no multiple consequtive posts

Personally, I think the thread is unreadable due to all of the poor posting practices performed by you in the past. However, I shall reopen the thread. If your posting practices are not on par with what is expected by moderation, I will close the thread again and do so with extreme prejudice.

----------------------------

Some sample posting:

Some recent examples of hard to read, copy\paste - each spoiler is a single post.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I will be doing a series of threads on common objections to the christian faith/bible. Around 15 in total of the most common objections I have seen on many forums through many years I have been involved on forums. I am looking to use these as references in future so I will only be dealing with discussion on the topic of each thread. So topic number one is...




how could a loving god as described in the bible, send those he loves to hell?those he loved so much as to send his son to die for them.

First god sends no one to hell, people chose by free will separation from him.
Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels Matt 25.41 not for humans
haven was prepared for man matt 25.34
there are Degrees of punishment in hell Matt 11 22-24 Romans 2.6
hell is separation from gods presence 2 Thessalonians 1.9


Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that it is really mean of God to punish people for rebellion and unbelief. For the sake of argument, let’s say that everyone does go to Heaven, regardless of their status in the Book of Life. Wouldn’t it be horribly unfair for God to condemn people who hate Him to an eternity in His presence, whether they like it or not? Heaven wouldn’t be pleasant for those who hate God, because Heaven is the place where we will fully experience God’s presence. Those who love God look forward to Heaven with longing, but Heaven would be nearly as bad as Hell for the unbeliever, because the unregenerate heart hates God.so in a sense, Hell is God finally giving the unbeliever what he wanted all along. But the absence of God means the absence of everything good, since everything good comes from Him
William lane craig

As C.S. Lewis has written:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it." (C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, Ch 9)


When unbelieving critics talk about Hell, they sometimes speak like it will be full of innocent people (like themselves!). However, the Bible doesn’t indicate that innocent people will spend a single moment in Hell. Rather, Hell is God’s answer to the fundamental injustice of this life. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Everyone knows that it is wrong that these people never be brought to account for what they’ve done; something in the human heart#demands#justice. And Hell is God’s answer.

Randy Alcorn writes:
Without Hell, justice would never overtake the unrepentant tyrants responsible for murdering millions. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with murder—and rape, and torture, and every evil.
Even if we may acknowledge Hell as a necessary and just punishment for evildoers, however, we rarely see#ourselves#as worthy of Hell.

God responds,#“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”#(Romans 3:10–12
it’s hard to understand that we deserve punishment, too. But most people have grievances against others—if someone stole from you, or hurt your children, or if you were a victim of something fundamentally unjust, you would want justice; your sense of what is right would demand that the person at fault pay a penalty for wronging you. Every time we break God’s law, that’s an affront to God, and He demands justice, just as we do imperfectly on a smaller scale. If you’ve ever said in your heart, “That person should#pay#for what he did!” then you fundamentally agree with the idea of Hell, because the doctrine of Hell says#somebody#is going to pay for every sin, eventually.

But the person who goes to Hell must reject Christ, who died so that anyone who repents can be saved. So God is not to be blamed when an unrepentant, rebellious creature chooses a destructive path that leads to Hell.
http://creation.com/hell

I have even heard it said that God created hell as an act of love. God gave us free will and therefore must accommodate those who do not want anything to do with Him. God's love for His followers is eternity in His presence, but those who reject Him must spend eternity separated from Him. So eternal punishment is not for those God hates, but those who hate Him.
http://www.creationconversations.com...d-hate-sinners

It is not gods fault that many will reject him, his offer is still fair and loving as hell was never meant for man.
Man chooses to go there witch has nothing to do with gods love or fairness but mans free will.
What of the people who do accept him? Should he not have made them because of those that chose life without god?

For why hell is a eternal sin with eternal punishment read
p 58-59 july-sep 2012 answers mag


hell literal fire?
Hell was prepared for devil and his angels matt 25.41 witch are spiritual beings unaffected by physical fire. hell is described as dark with flames, fire if literal would cancel each other out.

Fire is a picture of judgment, in Deuteronomy 9 and other places, it says god goes before Israel as a consuming fir. Means judgment. He judges cannan yet never burns them or cause fire etc the fire of his judgment was not literal fire, but he did judge them.


eternity?
We live in time, time itself is a created thing, so in eternity its not like time passes by forever. we will be outside of time in eternity, something very hard to understand and grasp

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First I believe we have very good reason to fear radical environmentalist, they view people as the problem to all earth concerns, just read my thread on the green dragon some of the responses on there.http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=515441

As I have pointed out there, many people i will refer to them as RE radical environmentalist, wish to reduce the worlds population to 500,000, so we can live in harmony with mother nature, they see humans as the problem we release co2 in atmosphere cut down trees kill of animal species were are a plague or disease in many of there views. I would say they already are causing genocide through abortion and policies that keep the poor poor and starve millions worldwide through these policies many of witch are to curve carbon emissions. So I believe not only can the RE cause genocide they already are.

This all comes from a atheistic worldview this worldview has no reason not to genocide,because there is no such thing as right and wrong.

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

There can only be such a thing as good and bad if the bible is true.

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for "good" or "bad." By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is "trickery."
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.


here are a few quotes of how they view man

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."

SaveThePlanetProtest.com

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

Reasons why we should not fear Christians starting a genocide.
We were all created equal (Acts 17:26).

no human being has more or less value than another, we all descend from the same family all created in the image of god. (Genesis 1:26–27



we are warned against killing

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
gen 9.6


it is one of gods top 10 no-no's

13 “You shall not murder.
exodus 20.13


our top commandments are to love others and even enemies as ourselves.


"If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.
exodus 23 4-5

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:36-40 referring to Deuteronomy 6.5 and Leviticus 19.18

8 Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments:
You shall not commit adultery,
you shall not murder,
you shall not steal,
you shall not covet,
and if there is any other commandment—all are summed up by this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13 8-9
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law
Galatians 5 22-23



to be perfect we are told to love our enemies.

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect
matt 5 44-48


So I see no reason to not commit genocide as a RE in fact reason to do so,and i see why not to do so with the bible.

You have yet to show that the 'green dragon' is anything more than a propaganda video. But I will show where the bible makes it the duty of every Christian to commit genocide, take slaves, and that forced marriage is a duty.

In the case of slavery:



That's 'foreigners' (so in the case of Christianity that would be none Christians,) now how are co-religionists to be treated?

So you can hold there family hostage, they can either leave there families, or agree to perpetual slavery.

.

slavery is not on our topic,I will reply here this one time but please lets keep on topic. Slavery is on one of my topic i will be doing in regular forum and you can bring up what you want there, ill be doing it in a few weeks. I must say you are way off on the circumstances and assumptions of witch i will correct for you when I do that thread so for know. Slavery is against the law and punishable by death.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of "man-stealing" which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are "ungodly and sinful" and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10

exodus 21. 5-6 says "But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

This is not at all what we think of in America as slavery, Jesus is refereed to as a slave as is the apostle paul, if anyone has a job they work under someone else and for them and can be considered a slave.

Contrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).
The bible tells owners to take care of "slaves" so they will be as sons, sounds like adoption almost.
21 He who pampers his servant from childhood
　　　　　　Will have him as a son in the end.
Proverbs 29.21
slaves were to be treated as being hired from year to year,and were not to be ruled over ruthlessly lev 25 53-54
　
many laws existed to prevent this from happening,many laws to help the poor in lev ex Deuteronomy
duternomy 15 1-18 shows slavery and poverty were to be battled against and not preferred institutions.

The OT laws are not gods perfect plan,but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture.Matt 19.8
we cannot apply todays western standards to OT near eastern jews.
many of the laws are case laws, such as if a man sells his daughter in slavery if two man quarrel etc these are working with interferer conditions in ancient near east.

ot law is not the way god wants, its a way for ancient Israel to live by in a fallen world.

　
all slaves were to be realsed after 6 years and could be bought back at any time if they had the money
people chose to enter into slavery
　
job 31 13-15 shows servants and masters are no different from each other.
no physical harm was to be done to a slave or they would be let go ex 21 26-27
if a master kills a slave he is to be put to death ex 21.20
1 chronicles 2 34-35 sheshan gave his daghter in marraige to his egyptian servant jarha.
isreal was commanded to offer safe havens for forighners run away slaves dueternomy 23 15-16
　
1/2 to 2/3 of white imigrants to america in colnial times served as indentured servants or biblical slavery.

So if any Christian lives in a town with non-christians, that town is to be obliterated and any Christian who talked with the non-christians is to be killed along side them.

Here we go with an example of that commandment in action:
.

these are not people who just happen to have different beliefs in a city, these are Canaanites who purposely are leading people away from god to worship false gods, god only ever ordered killings of the Canaanites, these are for specific time people and purpose, unless your saying Christians today should go kill a moabite? you say were not suppose to talk with non believers somehow? how did the apostles and jesus spread there message? talking with non belivers i dont see how you think this to be true.
Remember i posted if man killed man his blood will be required of him? that is what worshiping Canaanite gods does,you sacrifice babies, burning them alive, among other sins. So again this in no way is a command for Christians today it was a judgment that took over 400 years of terrible sin to finally warent justice because god is just.

proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished
exodus 34 6-7


please keep these in mind


7　If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8　and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9　And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10　and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18 7-10

god does not like the death of anyone but he is just and must judge he always gives time for repentance.

"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).


"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).

"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
Deuteronomy 30.19

god will forgive even the most sinfull nation if they repent and stop the evil they are doing.
jonah whole book also 3.10

on the ordered killings of the specific time and place Canaanites look under spoiler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).


4 "Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.
Deuteronomy 9:4

I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby. This shows that a far more critical view is needed than "argument by outrage." Indeed, "argument by outrage" often assumes a form of omniscience by the critic.


sometimes the death of someone is good in certain circumstances,sep 11 the president gave orders to shoot down planes-to save lives that the teriositt could have used to kill more inocent lives. Sometimes judges give the death penalty to certain murders,but we dont call them murders we call them good just judges.

The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when isreal was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22

　

they had 400 years to repent of there sins such as child sacrifice, the ones that remained if left alive would have carried on there culture [exampled African Americans in America not comparing the two in any way just continue of culture] so while the death of anyone is bad and death itself is bad given circumstances it was better than alternative [example Hitler]


cannanite society was a whole worldview and way of life witch is why god did not want isreal to mix with them and live with them. god jusdges for no other reason than the sins of the people amos 1-2 God did not hate the Canaanites but the crimes they committed.


36 They worshiped their idols,
which became a snare to them.
37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to false gods.
38 They shed innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did;
by their deeds they prostituted themselves.
psalm 106 36-38

　

they committed adultery in the temple, they chained woman to the temple and people would have sex with them, they sacrificed every first born babies to there god, which was a big furnace half man half bull , they had sex with animals male and female.
Also god gave them hundreds of years to repent, but they chose not to their influence was spreading to surrounding areas, so god had to do it, he has no joy in killing and he weeps for us, and with us, when death happens even to animals. Also Jericho is only ancient city not plundered when taken, just like the bible says, god told Israel not to plunder because this was for judgment.
When god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in genesis he said he would not destroy it until all good people were out.
this also was interfering with gods messianic line so either all die and go to hell or they are stopped. The bible says that if certain people were left alive they would fight against isreal and destroy the messianic line. Its like if hitler had been left alone to kill all jews,ascept being more important and killing off the messianic line before jesus was born.

Onto rape: Here we see that it is the duty of the faithful to rape any virgins taken as plunder.

So they repeatedly raped the prisoners they had taken, and when that was not enough then they ambushed another group of women and raped them.
And now, the question, do these laws still apply? Jesus is clear, they do:
There are more passages that make it clear that the laws of the OT still apply, if you wish me to link them
Now the kicker: IF the laws do not apply, then you can say nothing against homosexuality as Jesus never mentions it in the NT.

off topic again please stay on topic this will be only time I reply to off topic stuff, your first mistake is mistaking law with entire ot, the law is not specific commands for certain times people etc.when god told Noah to build a big boat that does not mean we are all to build really big boats, as to if the law applies I hope you know you are in minority of you think it does, the passage you site is true, but you must know Jesus did accomplish his works on the cross and resurrection correct?

know on to passage, given that the "law" punishes rape with death
Ex 22 10-17 Deuteronomy 22 23-29 2013-14 21 10-14 and page 118-121 is god a moral monster paul copan.
rape was punishable by death
Deuteronomy22 25-27

it seems weird to me you take this to mean it, than what you have to understand is just because something is in the bible does not mean it is good or what god wants its just what happened. notice verse number 25

25 In those days there was no king in Israel;(I) everyone did whatever he wanted

this is why it is good not to listen to atheist websites who cut off at v 24 and don't include last verse otherwise it just looks like you have never read the bible and unquestionably believe what anyone tells you. These site could never be misrepresenting the bible could they be?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.amazon.com/Resisting-Corn...ref=pd_sim_b_1





Here is a great documentary exsposing the religous and spiritual beliefs and worldview of the radical envirometal movement, watch and see how the leaders of the movments call on pagan dieties of earth moon sun etc and worship "mother earth" among other things of nature. Learn who there high presit are, there rules that must be followed, and how they treat decenting or hertical views.
Also included are the facts of scince thay do not tell you, the illlogical and unfounded conclusions based on the scince and knowledge we do have, and facts to reply to all there scare tactic doomsday scenarios they will tell of what will happen if we dont follow them know.
As well as how they indoctrinate,the lies they spred to help there agenda, and there history going back over 100 years of false predictions [prophecies] etc doomsday scenarios such as today's global warming warnings, these are not new these have been around all along and all there predictions have been false so far, watch in the leaders owns words there real purpose [its not to save trees].
Overall very good very informative and very scary to know people have power and intensions that they have and there view of human life. Watch the videos pro death agenda etc millions die a year because of envirmentalis policys who have power in poor countries to control the people.

done from a chirtian perspective, but if you are athist there will be more than enogh facts to respond with next time a radical envirometalist starts making claims that will make this worth it.

promo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAA2sLtzXJM





topics of dvd

1. The False World View of the Green Movement Dr. E. Calvin Belsner
2. Rescuing People from the Cult of the Green Dragon Dr. Peter Jones
3. Logos vs. Mysticism: Environmentalism's Flight from Reason Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi
4. From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth Dr. Michael Farris
5. A Brief History of Environmental Exaggerations, Myths and Downright Lies Dr. Steven Hayward
6. Putting Out the Dragon's Fire on Global Warming Dr. David Legates
7. How "Going Green" Impoverishes You, Your Church, and Your Society Hon. Becky Dunlop
8. Ravaging the World's Poor Dr. James Tonkowich
9. The Green Face of the Pro-Death Agenda: Population Control, Abortion and Euthanasia Dr. Charmaine Yoest
10. Threats to Liberty and the Move Toward a Global Government Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
11. A Biblical Guide to Genuine Creation Stewardship Dr. James Tonkowich
12. Go Therefore and Make Disciples: Advancing the Gospel in a World Permeated by Environmentalism Dr. Peter Jones

some predictions of radical environmentalist from 1970,they have being trying scare tactics for decades and even started in late 1800's all have been wrong and way off.


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist



how they view mankind


"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."

SaveThePlanetProtest.com

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.


"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat with demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned namely mistaking systems for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991


Free online videos

25 free videos, titled 25 videos al gore does not want you to see.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/25-anti-global-warming-videos-al-gore-does-not-want-you-to-see

Free online video
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/global-warming/global-warming


31,000 scintist reject man made global warming and are suing al gore for false information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qZHkvtV5rA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.petitionproject.org/




A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

[Søren]

Total relism certainly creates threads that are over-dependent on quotes from other writers, but from what I've seen it's more of a case of over-reliance than simple copy-pasting of an entire article. His input mostly seems to come from: highlighting key points, the odd interspersed paragraph of his own writing, quotes from the Bible (arguably where his input is strongest). If he was submitting this in an academic context we would probably tell him to contribute more of his own ideas, prefer paraphrasing over direct quotes, and make sure everything not of his is more clearly attributed to its author. So yes, there are a lot of problems, but given this is the D&D not an academic journal, and looking at the many other highly flawed threads in that forum, I can't see that total relism's problems are so chronic that a 1 year ban is justified. An incredibly long period given what many other posters get away with on a day-to-day basis.

Two side notes:

1) As regards the thread "How could a loving god send people to Hell?", total relism had a fair point that the thread was changing course into a discussion over whether God should be seen as loving in the first place. However, the topic was about whether being loving and sending people to hell are compatible, so I can see why he thought it wasn't relevant to discuss other reasons why God isn't loving. He probably needs to understand that threads do deviate from their original purpose over the course of discussion, but strictly speaking he had a point.

2)

You've been PMed many times about how you format your posts, and yet you continue to simply copy and paste huge walls of text interspersed with hyperlinks to websites of dubious worth. Please consider this your final warning - no more mass copy and pasting from other websites because it is not only extremely hard to read, but you are not even making an effort to argue properly, as you are simply swamping the other side with (mis)information that isn't even authored by you. If you don't stop, I will issue a forum ban from the Discussion and Debate forums so that you are unable to disrupt discussion there in future.

A lot of value judgments are being made about total relism's views here.

[Gigantus]

I added more material while you posted.

[total relism]

sorry mistake

[total relism]

It's a bit long winded, but I think this response of mine (from a previous discussion) may help:[/SPOILER]

I would like to quickly point out that these are not the specific reasons i was banned. As I said before here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-155-forum-ban


If I am banned for previous faults I am 100% ok with it and we can discuses/talk about that if that is reason for my ban. But those are not reason I was banned but, the reason I was last banned, that I am objecting to is the ban of my thread recently. In the appeals section they never gave me a chance to respond to what I was banned for this time. Most of what is posted above I never was even emails or pm on about.

Total relism certainly creates threads that are over-dependent on quotes from other writers, but from what I've seen it's more of a case of over-reliance than simple copy-pasting of an entire article. His input mostly seems to come from: highlighting key points, the odd interspersed paragraph of his own writing, quotes from the Bible (arguably where his input is strongest). If he was submitting this in an academic context we would probably tell him to contribute more of his own ideas, prefer paraphrasing over direct quotes, and make sure everything not of his is more clearly attributed to its author. So yes, there are a lot of problems, but given this is the D&D not an academic journal, and looking at the many other highly flawed threads in that forum, I can't see that total relism's problems are so chronic that a 1 year ban is justified. An incredibly long period given what many other posters get away with on a day-to-day basis.

Two side notes:

1) As regards the thread "How could a loving god send people to Hell?", total relism had a fair point that the thread was changing course into a discussion over whether God should be seen as loving in the first place. However, the topic was about whether being loving and sending people to hell are compatible, so I can see why he thought it wasn't relevant to discuss other reasons why God isn't loving. He probably needs to understand that threads do deviate from their original purpose over the course of discussion, but strictly speaking he had a point.

2)



A lot of value judgments are being made about total relism's views here.

First thank you very much for noticing. Almost all of what he posted I never even received pm's on. I am objecting for principle only, I feel because many moderators dont like what I say were/are looking for reasons to ban me. Not once untill very end of appel thread

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-155-forum-ban

did they bring up even one of the 2-3 objections or reasons given for my ban originally. i was never given permission to my thread to show were the moderator went on others words or just banned me for false reasons. Some of the reasons given are false all together. The objection that have come after my ban by other moderators that are true are, I did not put all quotes in spoilers. But how many on thread do that? what % not many. the one reference william lane craig I referenced it was him twice, yet some moderators claimed I did not. The other objection was I quoted the bibile to much on my op. I did indeed quote it alot but the thread was titled not what total realism says on a subject, but what the bible says. I remember reading on forum rules to reference support what you post, maybe I do over do it but that to me seems the way it should be done.



1] Thank you for getting it as I pointed this out in pm's. In fact this was a original objection to get me banned. they said i said it was off topic but was on and I would not respond. That is why i appealed as three times [maybe two] in original thread I responded to what they said even though it was off topic. I pointed out that my thread title "how could a loving god send people to hell" would not be a problem if god was not a god of love so no need for thread. They would just answer the problem with the claim god is not all loving. Also the reasons given why they say he is not all loving is a topic I wanted to do in future, so did not want to get into on that topic i was doing.


2] Ty, i wish I could say that was only pm from moderator like that.


I do see double standard, as many threads I make atheist quote many bible passages over and over and that is it. something like god is evil here are 7 passages why that is only post. Happens many times and I never see anyone blink. Whenever I quote I get in trouble banned 6 month's etc it seems. If you see my threads and read them there is no question many hate me, in fact ban's should be given out as even others members have told me, because the way I have been talked to by other [non moderator] members. Some have even asked posted on my threads, were are the moderators why are people allowed to say what they do against me. now I dont care the least to get anyone in trouble, this is a forum that people should be allowed to say what they want on. But I do think it should be fair to all no matter what their beliefs/opinions are. Maybe if rules were strict all the way around i would have been more careful, but when you see it all the time it seems to be no big deal.

[Gigantus]

I would like to quickly point out that these are not the specific reasons i was banned. As I said before here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-155-forum-ban


If I am banned for previous faults I am 100% ok with it and we can discuses/talk about that if that is reason for my ban. But those are not reason I was banned but, the reason I was last banned, that I am objecting to is the ban of my thread recently. In the appeals section they never gave me a chance to respond to what I was banned for this time. Most of what is posted above I never was even emails or pm on about.

Immediate response to posting of identical OP (as here):

Seeing that you have already tried to circumvent this ban by using an alternative account I don't see any reason for leniency.

You have previously been banned in April 2012 for six months for your posts which consists of nothing but copy-paste of material from other website without even sourcing them and failing to even debate properly, making your posts disruptive.
Apparently that didn't help.

Please state on what grounds you actually wish to appeal, seeing that your posting history since your last forum ban fully supports the measure taken.

All efforts afterward to explain that it was NOT the referenced thread but the accumulated posting behavior vis a vis PMs\notes failed. If so requested the complete thread can be posted in quarters.

[Jom]

As someone who was actually involved in the initial forum banning of total relism, I feel I should recuse from this case.

[Ciabhán]

This most recent forum ban stems from my attempts to get him to get him to reformat an op and post within guidelines. On top of that I also attempted to gently steer him into not derailing his own thread. When that didn't work the thread was closed. He immediately opened another thread with similar issues in terms of copy pasted arguments from other websites, including copyrighted work. This resulted in a second thread closure and conversation among mod staff about a forum ban. Considering he has a long history of similar issues the consensus was to forum ban him. Which I believe he immediately started trying to circumvent with alt accounts. I was reducing my participation and getting ready to step down from staff at the time so I didn't keep up on what occured afterwards.

[total relism]

Immediate response to posting of identical OP (as here):

All efforts afterward to explain that it was NOT the referenced thread but the accumulated posting behavior vis a vis PMs\notes failed. If so requested the complete thread can be posted in quarters.

tose were reasons for previous ban's that I received are they not? can you get points for same post more than once?.

This most recent forum ban stems from my attempts to get him to get him to reformat an op and post within guidelines. On top of that I also attempted to gently steer him into not derailing his own thread. When that didn't work the thread was closed. He immediately opened another thread with similar issues in terms of copy pasted arguments from other websites, including copyrighted work. This resulted in a second thread closure and conversation among mod staff about a forum ban. Considering he has a long history of similar issues the consensus was to forum ban him. Which I believe he immediately started trying to circumvent with alt accounts. I was reducing my participation and getting ready to step down from staff at the time so I didn't keep up on what occured afterwards.

I was given no attempt at all to be able to correct any post I had made. In the appeals section and in pm's I had told to the moderator Why not just tell me what they did not like about op and i will gladly fix it. Instead I was just banned and given excuses that I did not commit.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

As the one that issued the ban I should explain a bit.

Jom forumbanned TR back in May 2012 and that forum ban was for 6 months due to him ignoring various PMs, notes and warnings about his posting behaviour.
2-3 months after the 6 month forumban was over, I noticed TR making two more threads in Ethos that showed that the forumban have had no effect at all.
The same problems were still there, I will not list those problems as Gigantus has already done so.
So after discussion, I gave TR a forumban again and upped the time for that ban due to his recent forumban.

[total relism]

could you please tell me what those were? that you banned me for this time, that i also committed before?. From what I remeber you gave me 2-3 reasons that were new and clealrey false.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

As I stated Total Relism, Gigantus posted all the info needed.
Had this been a new problem then a pm would have been enough but it isn't.
As the tribunals can see, this has been a problem that has been going on for years and moderators have in the past tried to help Total Relism with his posts which fell on deaf ears.
Jom tried as well but his advice was also ignored and thus Total Relism was forumbanned for 6 months.
6 months later Total Relism return and nothing has changed.
So no new reasons were given to you Total Relism, I gave you the same reasons you were banned the first time.

[total relism]

could you give me the specific reasons in your pm to me that i was banned for this time that I have repeated?. Please. Also was I not banned and punished for prier things i have done? why than do i get punished for same things again?.

what i said earlier.
If I am banned for previous faults I am 100% ok with it and we can discuses/talk about that if that is reason for my ban. But those are not reason I was banned but, the reason I was last banned, that I am objecting to is the ban of my thread recently.

[Gigantus]

Sigh

All efforts afterward to explain that it was NOT the referenced thread but the accumulated posting behavior vis a vis PMs\notes failed. If so requested the complete thread can be posted in quarters.

[total relism]

Sigh

ok well at least this contradicts the reasons he gave in pm to me for my ban, those are the reasons i am appealing.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Appeal 843 - Forum Ban (Split Decision)

The Tribunal unanimously agrees a one-year forum ban from D&D is not a suitable or just punishment based on the evidence presented.

The majority opinion finds that the re-posting of previously closed threads and the use of alt accounts to circumvent suspension constitutes a breach of the defying moderators’ clause of the TWC Terms of Service. The Tribunal concludes that the punishment suitable for these offences is a forum ban of no longer than one month.

The dissenting judge held that the punishment was arbitrary and favoured granting the appeal in its entirety.

Appeal PARTIALLY GRANTED

[total relism]

Appeal 843 - Forum Ban (Split Decision)

The Tribunal unanimously agrees a one-year forum ban from D&D is not a suitable or just punishment based on the evidence presented.

The majority opinion finds that the re-posting of previously closed threads and the use of alt accounts to circumvent suspension constitutes a breach of the defying moderators’ clause of the TWC Terms of Service. The Tribunal concludes that the punishment suitable for these offences is a forum ban of no longer than one month.

The dissenting judge held that the punishment was arbitrary and favoured granting the appeal in its entirety.

Appeal PARTIALLY GRANTED

sorry

[total relism]

Appeal 843 - Forum Ban (Split Decision)

The Tribunal unanimously agrees a one-year forum ban from D&D is not a suitable or just punishment based on the evidence presented.

The majority opinion finds that the re-posting of previously closed threads and the use of alt accounts to circumvent suspension constitutes a breach of the defying moderators’ clause of the TWC Terms of Service. The Tribunal concludes that the punishment suitable for these offences is a forum ban of no longer than one month.

The dissenting judge held that the punishment was arbitrary and favoured granting the appeal in its entirety.

Appeal PARTIALLY GRANTED

Thank you very much, I accept the punishment with no problems at all. I am very glad i found the Tribunal. Just wondering, what does this mean for my ban? one month from now? or original ban time?.