toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[Sum1sGruj]

The site says its biased when you sign up. You didnt have to sign up.

Yeah, that's not really much of an excuse either for what some actually experience. It is not just bias, it is shameless spite and bigotry. The one who runs the site may be biased, but the funny thing is out of all the spite and bullying on here, he's the one who doesn't participate in it.
Speaks volumes, does it not?

But that doesn't bother you at all, does it? You, who begs for scraps, and framing utterances and lies, nailing them to the wall above your shrine of feminism and over-exposed, worldly convictions.
My grievances with other posters have come and gone, but you? You've just stuck right there right from the start which is why your contribution is something to pretty much be expected.

You can't defend something that is self-evidently unrighteous and then pretend that you are righteous.
I think that's the irony with you and a handful of other posters and is tentamount to everything I have said about your lot.

 

[serpentdove]

[Chrysostom quote "I wonder who does the most reporting?] "In point of fact: it's me..."

People should consider that when discussing a topic :noway: with you. each:

I used to tell my kids when they were young, "No one likes a tattle tale." It's not an attractive trait (Re 12:10).

 

[Town Heretic]

People should consider that when discussing a topic :noway: with you. each:

That I was honest enough to admit it after I did a lengthy search on the subject or the fact that the vast majority of them were between me and old Sod? Yes. If you're named Sod it's worth considering.

I used to tell my kids when they were young, "No one likes a tattle tale." It's not an attractive trait.

I'll tell my son, when he's old enough to understand, that the sort of people who find the upholding of an honor code "tattling" are usually the sort of people who like to violate it.

 

[serpentdove]

"That I was honest enough to admit it after I did a lengthy search on the subject or the fact that the vast majority of them were between me and old Sod?"

You want brownie points for admitting the fact that you are one of the top reporters of other members?

"I'll tell my son, when he's old enough to understand, that the sort of people who find the upholding of an honor code "tattle-telling" are usually the sort of people who are told on for lacking it."

It' not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10). If I were an administrator, I would send you to my email spam box.

"I think the first line of defense from stalkers and spammers should be an honest attempt to deal with it yourself..."

That is the best choice. When you report someone for something it says to the world, I'm a gangly dweeb, too unimaginative to defend myself. :Whipsnap:

"If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."

That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

 

[Town Heretic]

You want brownie points for admitting the fact that you are one of the top reporters of other members?

I think it's fair (no idea what brownie points would amount to) to recognize that when the facts were against my perception I looked at them and brought them to the attention of people who would have had no way to discover the fact themselves.

It' not honorable to be a tattle tale.

It is honorable to report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor (especially after attempts to instruct the offending party, assuming the best which is ignorance on their part)f If you believe the reporting option and/or the rules here are dishonorable you should petition Knight for their removal.

If I were an administrator, I would send you to my email spam box.

That's nice.

That is the best choice.

It must be, being your choice. lain: You should petition the admin.

When you report someone for something it says to the world, I'm a gangly dweeb, too unimaginative to defend myself. :Whipsnap:

Given how you approach posts here I can well understand why that bothers you. Given you've been banned a number of times for poor conduct it makes perfect sense that you'd find it objectionable.

And thieves probably hate locks.

That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff.

If you think Knight is sponsoring a usurpation of the prerogative of the Holy Spirit you should take that up with him immediately.

 

[Lon]

Blah., you keep talking about your little triangle. Trinitarians put up a thousand and one threads resembling the same thing,

No, not really. But I can imagine you feel alone and isolated, then that paranoia sets in or something.

and they are all predictable due to the sheer repetition of the same old things over and over again. No original insight, no interesting context, just a bunch of 'proof texts' and bigoted bantering.

Wow. I wish you'd start a thread to stop all your arian friends from single-issue preaching.

There was a pot who met a kettle !
The end.

Your's is rather large for such little company. You are going to have to throw out the rest of the stew.

I don't know what your current fascination is with my posts, following me around and bashing me with your insufferable concept, but this subject has nothing to do with your archaic philosophy.

Purely happenstance. I'm sure we'll ignore one another again soon enough.

The name of this site is 'theologyonline'. People do not come here thinking that they are going to get treated like crap for having differing views,

Uhmm, then be quiet about it or take your medicine like a good little arian soldier?

and so therefore, you all should cease trying to crusade the site.

Honestly? I still think it is the arians rocking the boat. Go look at my thread where I asked them politely not to post. They disrupted the thread like they do the whole board. On top of that, I personally think you perpetuate it as well, with your complaints. If you can't ignore those threads, you are playing the victim and contributing to your own frustration.

There is no real justification for the way some of you act., as long as one can admit what is so obvious, I wouldn't even have a problem with it. It's the dishonesty that is aggravating.

There might be some truth there but it is stated a bit vague, such that you could have very well had me in mind when you wrote it.

For me, this is one site I don't look for much coddling. I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. This isn't the 'feel - good' site of the decade but we value it for other reasons instead. I at least suspect we are on the same page with that understanding.

 

[Lon]

You want brownie points for admitting the fact that you are one of the top reporters of other members?

:doh: Hello. He's a "lawyer." That be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once inawhile...

 

[Town Heretic]

:doh: Hello. He's a "lawyer." That be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once inawhile...

:chuckle: But I suppose I misunderstood. I had thought the general perception of my profession was one of dishonesty or at least of careful promotion and omission.

I find it telling that when I admit to something I know will be used against me and that I wasn't obligated to look into or provide that I'm "looking for brownie points". Had I failed to do so I doubtless would have been "hiding something."

 

[meshak]

:doh: Hello. He's a "lawyer." That be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once inawhile...

He does not know what Jesus teaches.

 

[meshak]

He does not know what Jesus teaches.

wow I got neg repped by ebnes by commenting this.

I see how TH is esteemed by Mods.

 

[serpentdove]

[Proof please. each:] "That I moved it?"

No. Move it if you like. I reject your claim that I am a spammer. :spam: I ask legitimate questions. If anything, I try to wrap up debate not prolong it.

[Odd post] "There's a whole thread of posts like that..."

It was, as the kids would say, random. lain:

[Knight gave me a warning because you asked him to.] "Do you think Knight does what anyone asks him to do?"

No. Just you. You're a slick lawyer. :Shimei:

[I cannot share the two PMs that he sent me because I have not been given permission to do so.] "Yeah. You wouldn't want to betray a confidence..."

He wouldn't care but--just in case.

"...like you just did, in principle."

Proof please. each:

If you believe all of the things you charge me with, :dizzy: pray tell--why to respond to me at all?

[If you subscribe to the thread, you get an email with their original comments. If they change the comments, you can respond to that also. I would suggest providing a timestamp so that the reader knows that you are addressing a comment from an earlier revision.] "That would be helpful if everyone subscribed and had their emails sending them the text. I suspect most don't. I don't have the text sent or notices delivered to it..."

You check the thread every so often?

"If you're just going to keep repeating the same charges after I set out an answer I'm going to assume there's no point in answering you."

If I reply with "Let the reader decide", that is your indication that 1. I reject your truth claim and 2. We are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide who is right and who is wrong. each:

[The Left is about Control. The Right is about freedom.] "Nah..."

...And the moon is made of cheese. :hammer: Let the reader decide. each:

[I asked a question. I could have asked: "Why are you so boring?"] "Except that's not really a question. It's a childish and witless insult with peculiar punctuation at the end."

That's is why I did not say it.

"It's a thinly wrapped ad hom..."

It's just a regular :yawn: ad hominem.

"...as is much of what you post"

I didn't post it even though it was a valid observation.

"Not your humor, but your complaints about being on the receiving end."

No complaints. I'm not sensitive.

I point out :yawn: ad hominem attacks so that the argument can move along. :mario: I used to think that people would develop better debate styles and avoid fallacious arguments--but that didn't happen. lain:

[Do you think anyone enjoys reading your irrelevant, rabbit trail arguments?] "See? That's another one."

That's why I did not say it. Although, had I said it you still should not have reported my post. :baby: You are petty.

"As to people enjoying the thread, sure. And I have about 158,605 reasons to think so."

You've been wrong 158, 605 times. When you move to the right, you'll have 1 enjoyable thing to say (Eccl 10:2). The good news is, God is storing up wisdom for you (Pr 2:7).

"I can help you figure out why you are the way you are."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). I can help you figure out why you are the way you are (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"Childish ad hom."

"You'll thank me later." :skeptic: ~ Adrian Monk

[There are times when we are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide for himself who is right and who is wrong. each: The ZooAnimal, CheeseWiz, Noguru types :dizzy: will always be there to support you--until they become Christians (Eccl 10:2).] "Thanks for making my point for me, you sad little thing you....You don't learn. You won't change..."

Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian (Ga 5:9). :dizzy:

Start talking about God's holiness (Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2) and man's sin. See how popular you become (Isa 59:2).

 

[Town Heretic]

No. Move it if you like. I reject your claim that I am a spammer.

Of course you do. That would mean that you had a problem. Everyone knows that you don't have a problem...to the point where it's become a problem...which you clearly don't have. :think:

:spam: I ask legitimate questions. If anything, I try to wrap up debate not prolong it.

You wrap this up any more succinctly and we're going to need another server. lain:

"Do you think Knight does what anyone asks him to do?"

No. Just you. You're a slick lawyer. :Shimei:

And yet Sod remained until the day he chose to leave, except for a few time outs for gross behavior. Surely I'd have had him permanently banned with all my influence.

proof please

You set out the alleged existence of personal communication. Did you ask if you could do that? :nono:

If you believe all of the things you charge me with, :dizzy: pray tell--why to respond to me at all?

Because I've had ingrained in me a truth at law, that silence in the face of misrepresentation, is a form of assent. And because where I come from when someone disparages your good name you take their teeth, metaphorically of course. I've learned that the internet is a different animal, but it's a hard habit to break.

You check the thread every so often?

No. It shows up in my subscribed threads bit on my User CP page.

If I reply with "Let the reader decide", that is your indication that 1. I reject your truth claim and 2. We are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide who is right and who is wrong. each:

That actually wasn't a response to the line of mine that preceded it, but I'm glad you got it off your chest. :idunno:

...And the moon is made of cheese. :hammer: Let the reader decide

That you don't realize how both wrong and amusingly you that is is part of what makes you as tempting to answer as a bowl of honey roasted cashews is to reach for. :chew: Both being better with a beer as well.

That's is why I did not say it.

Except that you did, of course, only just. :chuckle:

...Although, had I said it you still should not have reported my post. :baby: You are petty.

You probably won't get this, but when you offer insult you invite it. But you'll always get argument from me on the points to be addressed. You don't do that very often. You mostly declare a thing and when pressed/countered declare "Let the reader decide."

And when the reader decides against you they aren't Christians until they change their minds. :chuckle: That's amazing, really.

You've been wrong 158, 605 times.

Well, no. That's the number of views Observations had generated at that point (the number now being 158,723). So your opinion of the thread isn't shared by a rather large number of people. And that's all right. Not everyone likes anything.

Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian. :dizzy:

And on that day God will judge who is and who isn't His. But unless I miss my guess that's not you and this isn't that day.

Start talking about God's holiness and man's sin. See how popular you become.

That you believe that's why you aren't is almost as sad as it is understandable. Christ was hugely popular for quite a bit of his ministry. You have actually read the gospel accounts of the multitudes and the crowds that followed after, I suspect. So don't make out popularity as a sin or a want of general admiration as a virtue. It isn't inherently either.

 

[Lon]

wow I got neg repped by ebnes by commenting this.

I see how TH is esteemed by Mods.

I don't think so. I think you were negged because you missed a great bit of humor:

:doh: Hello. He's a "lawyer." That be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once inawhile...

See, I should have said "That['d or would] be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once inawhile.

That would have been a lot funnier than what you said.

He does not know what Jesus teaches.

Remember Ecclesiastes? There is a time and place for everything under heaven. You don't have to smile all the time, but you can't crus[-ad]e every thread with only your one or two topics.

 

[serpentdove]

[It's not honorable to be a tattle tale] "It is honorable..."

Why do you speak of honor when you misquote me? You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). It's not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10).

You have no integrity.

"...to report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor..."

This is was serious? :smokie: Warning: 1, 2

"If you believe the reporting option and/or the rules here are dishonorable you should petition Knight for their removal."

I'm not too worried about it.

"...[Y]ou've been banned a number of times for poor conduct..."

:yawn: Poisoning the well.

I've never been banned for poor conduct. I've been banned for linking to too many AIG pages for discussion. Knight did not want to be sued. I had gotten permission from AIG to link to and discuss their material.

My first ban was for vulgarity. An administrator believed that I used perverted, despicable sexual innuendo. I did not. Her carnal mind misunderstood my intention (Tit 1:15). I've written a brief blog about it.

Infractions:

Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM
Interview a Member Thread
Reason: Thread hijacking January 19th, 2012 11:15 PM by ebenz47037 0 / July 18th, 2012 12:15 AM
Two Missing Legs: Did...
Reason: Duplicating content from the AIG website July 24th, 2010 01:58 PM by Knight 5 / Expired
Creation Is Religion Pt V
Reason: Posting previous essays/writings July 18th, 2010 02:51 PM by Knight 2 / Expired

"That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). That [being able to answer opposition] is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."
SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

"If you think Knight is sponsoring a usurpation of the prerogative of the Holy Spirit you should take that up with him immediately."

:yawn: Strawman. I was not referring to Knight. I was referring to you. You will need the Holy Spirit to be able to answer others (Mk 13:11, Lk 12:12).

 

[serpentdove]

He does not know what Jesus teaches.

As a reminder, Meshak is number 17 on Satan, Inc. (TOL's heretic's list) in the The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why do you speak of honor when you misquote me? You removed the scripture from my quote.

That's not misquoting you. Look it up in the dictionary. By your reasoning failing to reproduce your entire post would be misquoting you. :freak:

It's not honorable to be a tattle tale.

Spoken like a thief decrying locks. :thumb:

You have no integrity.

See, you're just one continuous ad hom. Which is why it's so funny when you make a big deal out of them.

...to report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor..."

This is was serious? :smokie: Warning:

1, 2

lain: Is this: hello :wave2: Nope. It's also not what we're talking about, which was reporting posts that violate the honor code. What's wrong with you anyway? :think:

I'm not too worried about it.

Maybe you should be. lain:

"...[Y]ou've been banned a number of times for poor conduct..."

:yawn: Poisoning the well.

So far: reporting blasphemy is dishonorable and noting that you've been banned for poor conduct is poisoning a well... lain: If you're going to try to play at lawyering do a better job. Prior bad acts are admissible if they evidence habitual conduct on point.

I've never been banned for poor conduct.

:rotfl: That's the ONLY reason anyone is banned, doofus. Rule violation is poor conduct prima facie. Geeze...

My first ban was for vulgarity.

Uh-huh. Save the explanation. I'm sure you were as innocent of it as you were honest when you said you enjoyed Observations. :chuckle:

You removed the scripture from my quote. That [being able to answer opposition] is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff.

I sure did. The only time I've left one on intentionally in a while since I told you exactly why I won't include it is to illustrate how bonkers you are with your confusing the right hand with right wing politics. I now realize that you actually believe it, which makes me feel both better and worse about you (better in that you aren't doing it the way old Sod did/worse because you actually believe it). But I'm not going to facilitate that sort of misuse of the Holy to support nonsense.

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."
SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff.

:yawn: Strawman.

You really don't seem to understand what that means. :nono:

I was not referring to Knight. I was referring to you.

Who made it a rule violation? Who punishes for it? Who should, according to you?

Have a nutty old day. :wave2:

 

[serpentdove]

[I don't spam :spam:] "Of course you do."

:yawn: Poisoning the well. I respond to truth claims.

[Mockingly] "Everyone knows that you don't have a problem...to the point where it's become a problem."

:yawn: Bandwagon

[Mockingly] "[W]hich you clearly don't have."

That is the first truthful thing you've said today. lain: It is true that I do not spam. :spam:

[Wrapping up debate] "You wrap this up any more succinctly and we're going to need another server."

Being on the Left, you use fallacious arguments (Eccl 10:2). I respond to your claims for the purpose of showing others how you argue (Eph 4:14)-- each: except in your Observations thread. You've got a fine arrangement there lawyer. :Shimei:

[SOD] "I'd have had him permanently banned with all my influence."

You are a control freak (example 1, 2). :Commie: I'm glad that they have not made you an administrator. :reals:

They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).

[Knight's PMs to me] "You set out the alleged existence of personal communication. Did you ask if you could do that?"

I didn't ask Knight if I could reveal that he sent me two PMs. I didn't release the content of those messages which was benign. lain: Why? Do you think I should be banned for revealing that he sent me messages after you reported me? :banned:

Were you a hall pass monitor in grade school by chance? :think:

[If you believe all of the things you charge me with, :dizzy: pray tell--why to respond to me at all?] "Because I've had ingrained in me a truth at law..."

If you are devoted to the truth, why do you remove the word of God (Jn 1:1) from other people's quotes? Eph 4:14

"...ilence in the face of misrepresentation, is a form of assent."

:yawn: Ad hominem. If I misrepresented the facts, each: you would have a case.

"[W]here I come from when someone disparages your good name..."

You're not good (Ro 3:12) and you disparage your own name (Pr 10:8,14; Ec 10:12).

[There is no wisdom on the Left (Eccl 10:2), ...And the moon made of cheese, denying reality] "That you don't realize how both wrong and amusingly you that is is part of what makes you as tempting to answer as a bowl of honey roasted cashews is to reach for..."

The fact is people move the right as they age. each: Do you believe that you are less wise today than you were ten years ago? :smokie:

[You are a bore. That's is why I did not say it.] "Except that you did, of course, only just."

That was my first thought, thought that is not what I originally said. You spend most of your time attacking people :yawn: not issues; each: therefore, your arguments are weak and shallow. This is a trait of the Left (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"You mostly declare a thing..."

I mostly share the word of God (Ac 20:20).

"...and when pressed/countered declare "Let the reader decide."

What you do with the word of God is your business (2 Thess 2:10).

"...[W]hen the reader decides against you..."

:yawn: Who cares what I think. What does God say. oly:

"... they aren't Christians..."

We are fruit inspectors (Mt 7:16).

"...[Y]our opinion of the thread isn't shared by a rather large number of people."

:yawn: Bandwagon (Ex 23:2).

"Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian (Ga 5:9). :dizzy:

"Start talking about God's holiness and man's sin. See how popular you become."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). Start talking about God's holiness (Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2) and man's sin. See how popular you become (Isa 59:2).

"That you believe that's why you aren't is almost as sad as it is understandable..."

"You love me! You really love me!" ~ The Mask

"...Christ was hugely popular for quite a bit of his ministry."

They murdered him. Tell us why you removed scripture from my quotes (Jn 1:1).

"...[D]on't make out popularity as a sin..."

All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? :smokie: Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5.

:listen: That sounds like a question that :baby: you should report. :banned:

 

[The Barbarian]

I never thought it would get so bad that I'd be embarrassed for Serpent. But there it is.

TH has finally given me a reason to empathize with her.

 

[chrysostom]

wow I got neg repped by ebnes by commenting this.

I see how TH is esteemed by Mods.

he does a lot of reporting for them

 

[serpentdove]

[Speaking of honor while continually rmisquoting me (Eph 4:14).] "That's not misquoting you."

Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).

"Look it up..."

I've successfully completed English 101. Thanks anyway.

You misquote others. When your error is pointed out, you continue to do it anyway. You are deceitful and you have no integrity (Eph 4:14).

"By your reasoning failing to reproduce your entire post would be misquoting you."

You may use as much or as little of my quote as you'd like. When you cut off any portion of a statement (which for you just so happens to always be scripture [Jn 1:1]), it is necessary to use ellipses (...). You've been made aware of this repeatedly.

[It's not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10).] "Spoken like a thief."

:yawn: Ad hominem.

[You have no integrity.] "See, you're just one continuous ad hom."

I provide proof for my claim. Let the reader decide. each:

"...[T]o report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor..."

If you believe I libel, you will report this post :banned: --what else is new?

[Were posts 1 and 2 serious?] "...[N]ot what we're talking about..."

Let the reader decide. each:

"...[W]hich was reporting posts that violate the honor code."

You believe my post violates the honor code. I do not. We disagree.

[I'm not too worried about it (not revealing Knight's PM to me).] "Maybe you should be."

I'm sure you've reported the non-violation :dizzy: already. :banned:

"...[Y]ou've been banned a number of times for poor conduct..."

Proof please. each:

"So far: reporting blasphemy is dishonorable..."

:yawn: Strawman

"...[A]nd noting that you've been banned for poor conduct is poisoning a well."

Correct. You attempt to :yawn: poison the well. What you don't do is attempt to argue an issue. each:

[Court of law] "...Prior bad acts are admissible if they evidence habitual conduct on point."

If the evidence was sound, each: then a judge could allow such evidence being presented in the courtroom.

[I've never been banned for poor conduct.] "That's the ONLY reason anyone is banned, doofus."

Let the reader decide. each: We learned that Cattyfan thinks differently than I do (Tit 1:15) and Knight was concerned for legal reasons. Explain why you attempt to :yawn: poison the well.

[My first ban was for vulgarity.] "Save the explanation..."

Is that what a judge would tell you if you :yawn: attempted to discredit another?

I'm sure you were as innocent of it as you were honest when you said you enjoyed Observations. :chuckle:

Apparently you find it funny. I do not. lain:

"...I'm not going to facilitate that sort of misuse of the Holy to support nonsense."

You will continue to misquote me (Jn 1:1, Eph 4:14). You've made that clear.

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."
SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff.

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

[Justification for reporting members to TOL administrators]

TH: "I think the first line of defense from stalkers and spammers should be an honest attempt to deal with it yourself..."

SD: That is the best choice. When you report someone for something it says to the world, I'm a gangly dweeb, too unimaginative to defend myself. :Whipsnap:

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."

SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

[No personal relationship with the Holy Spirit to know how to answer opposition (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12 ] "Who made it a rule violation? Who punishes for it? Who should, according to you?"

At this forum Knight is in charge (Ro 13:1). If he were to abuse his authority, he'd have to answer for it (Ro 14:12).