|
Post by phinehas on Apr 20, 2007 1:55:47 GMT -5
Kevin, meet blondie. Blondie, meet kevin.
Kevin has pointed out that I am an awful representative of the Christian faith for calling you an atheist.
Kevin has graciously taken on the responsibility of discussing religious matters, especially Christian religious matters with you.
Kevin will debate with you, the "proper" way.
One of you please start the first topic of debate......
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 20, 2007 6:39:44 GMT -5
Kevin, meet blondie. Blondie, meet kevin. Kevin has pointed out that I am an awful representative of the Christian faith for calling you an atheist. Kevin has graciously taken on the responsibility of discussing religious matters, especially Christian religious matters with you. Kevin will debate with you, the "proper" way. One of you please start the first topic of debate...... I have? Or are you merely nominating me? Are you angered (or just irritated) by my accusation of bad Christian representation by your various venom-filled posts? If a supposed atheist goes on the attack and gets heated, returning the volley in kind only shows her/him (I wish someone would clarify this) that your character is truly not any different than that of an unbeliever. When Jesus came into the temple and found people selling sacrifices, he didn't argue with these "salesmen" -- he threw them out! I know you can't do that on a forum, but if someone angers you like this, stand up for your rights but don't let it degrade to name calling and constant hateful, sarcastic language. If you had called blondie atheist once or twice it would be one thing. But if you go back and look at most of your responses to this person, the moniker closes out many of the sentences you type. I can't really convey how that would sound, it would be akin to end all of your conversation with people with labels. "Well, what do you think about that, black man?" "Is that all you talk about, gay boy?" "If that's what you want to believe, women." In other words, these people don't need you to add the label as a reminder. It is a specific way for you to point out that you have a problem with the particular person.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 20, 2007 7:57:40 GMT -5
"Are you angered (or just irritated) by my accusation of bad Christian representation by your various venom-filled posts?"
I'm not angry but a bit irritated. You classify my posts toward him as venom-filled because I call him an atheist.
You deal with it. Now, don't deal with it by not having a discussion with atheists...but you go ahead and debate with him. You show me how it's done.
All of us that have, prior to the short time you have been here, will sit back and watch how you do it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 20, 2007 8:24:05 GMT -5
Phinehas isn't insulting me when he calls me an Atheist. I am an Atheist.
Also, he's only a bad representation of Christianity in that he's made up his own new-age version of that faith. This is typical in America. He has no dogma that can be pointed at.
Phinehas' Christianity is incoherent. If you're going to be a Christian you should be orthodox. You should subscribe to an established tradition. If you're going to make up your own religion I believe you are obligated to at least knock out a little manifesto so people have some idea of which bits of the established traditions you believe in.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 20, 2007 11:26:59 GMT -5
kevin, you are totally, accurately assessing this 'Fraud,' phiny, and everyone in their right mind knows he is troublemaker...not a Peacemaker and not a good representative of even the Human race, and surely NOT Christianity!
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 20, 2007 17:39:17 GMT -5
Phinehas isn't insulting me when he calls me an Atheist. I am an Atheist. Also, he's only a bad representation of Christianity in that he's made up his own new-age version of that faith. This is typical in America. He has no dogma that can be pointed at. Phinehas' Christianity is incoherent. If you're going to be a Christian you should be orthodox. You should subscribe to an established tradition. If you're going to make up your own religion I believe you are obligated to at least knock out a little manifesto so people have some idea of which bits of the established traditions you believe in. And what if you have no such coherent manifesto? I guess the only thing left is to ardhently deny that anything has any meaning, as blondie does.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 20, 2007 17:43:52 GMT -5
Phinehas isn't insulting me when he calls me an Atheist. I am an Atheist. Of that we are aware. And I'm sure it wasn't really an insult to you per se, but it insulted me as someone who is given a false depiction of Christian behavior. I don't care how most people act but I do care when people try to represent Christianity and make us look bad. Its called our "witness" and any strong believer knows the value of a good witness. Mark 18:1-9 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? "Then He called a child to Him and had him stand among them. "I assure you," He said, "unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child—this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one child like this in My name welcomes Me. "But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea! Woe to the world because of offenses. For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes. If your hand or your foot causes your downfall, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes your downfall, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, rather than to have two eyes and be thrown into hellfire! Jesus was alluding to the body of Christ (all of those who are truly Christians) when he spoke of casting off parts of that body. In other words, if one part of the body (a person) was causing strife and leading others astray, it is better that they are "cast away" from the body to keep the rest intact. So when people out there say they represent Christ but do not act Christ like, they are like those offending parts of the body. I think you can figure out the rest yourselves .
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 20, 2007 17:50:25 GMT -5
And what if you have no such coherent manifesto? I guess the only thing left is to ardhently deny that anything has any meaning, as blondie does. Does everything have to have a "meaning", or is that just something that makes people feel more secure because there aren't any unexplained mysteries about life and the world around us? (Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the simplest of mysteries, like when to use "puking material" in a sentence... LOL) BTW - Welcome to the forum Kevin, in case no one else has said it yet...
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 20, 2007 18:20:53 GMT -5
\"kevin, you are totally, accurately assessing this \'Fraud,\' phiny, and everyone in their right mind knows he is troublemaker...not a Peacemaker and not a good representative of even the Human race, and surely NOT Christianity!\"
Kevin,
I guess we can expect you to condemn this sort of remark from lawman, since he has been representing Christianity as well? I would think that stating another person is \"not a good representative of even the Human race\", to be more offending to you, then addressing an atheist....as an atheist. Surprisingly you haven\'t made a peep about it. Your witness isn\'t looking to good.
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 20, 2007 18:30:46 GMT -5
kevin,
When are you going to actually debate blondie on the validity of Christianity or in theism in general. I too am curious to see a Christian, at your self implied level, debate a poster like blondie without getting your dandruff up.
Or is it you are good at telling people how they should do something but would do just as poorly at it as those you preach to?
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 20, 2007 18:35:37 GMT -5
re: Starlag13...
"Kevin,
I guess we can expect you to condemn this sort of remark from lawman, since he has been representing Christianity as well? I would think that stating another person is \"not a good representative of even the Human race\", to be more offending to you, then addressing an atheist....as an atheist. Surprisingly you haven\'t made a peep about it. Your witness isn\'t looking to good."
Maybe because Kevin wasn't aware of the comment, or it wasn't used repeatedly? Or maybe there wasn't a topic started for the purpose of pointing out whatever lawman had said? I dunno, but in the interest of political correctness, perhaps we should demand that Kevin makes a condemation of every insulting person on the board... LOL (That's gonna take a while... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 20, 2007 18:47:51 GMT -5
Maybe because Kevin wasn\'t aware of the comment
I find it hard to believe that a person would some how be able to miss it, when you are replying to a post and the one in question comes right after it. I guess we shall see if it\'s a matter of, Selective reading perhaps or selective religious condemnation.
perhaps we should demand that Kevin makes a condemation of every insulting person on the board
I believe he has stated that he doesn\'t care about non-Christian\'s remarks, so they get a free pass by kevin.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 20, 2007 19:18:55 GMT -5
kevin, you are totally, accurately assessing this 'Fraud,' phiny, and everyone in their right mind knows he is troublemaker... not a Peacemaker and not a good representative of even the Human race, and surely NOT Christianity! Kevin, take note! lawman is the peacemaker around here so you might want to pay attention to what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 20, 2007 19:26:27 GMT -5
Kevin, meet blondie. Blondie, meet kevin. Kevin has pointed out that I am an awful representative of the Christian faith for calling you an atheist. Kevin has graciously taken on the responsibility of discussing religious matters, especially Christian religious matters with you. Kevin will debate with you, the "proper" way. One of you please start the first topic of debate...... phinehas, in Kevin's defense your post to Blondie has come across as...angry as of late. Whether you ment them to or not, I would side with you that you did not because I've seen you posting on here for a while. Kevin, it's painfully obvious that you are new to this forum because of the "number of post" near your name. In phinehas' defense, he's been trying to debate Blondie for a long time as have most of us. It can be very frustrating to have Blondie just jump into any random thread and start spreading his hate around. It's very obvious that Blondie hates the idea of Christianity and despises anyone who adheres to it. Phinehas may have been out of line but you shouldn't go around blasting him if he is. Phinehas has set me straight a couple of times when I got out of hand so try to keep in mind that you really don't know any of the personalities on this board yet. On a side note, I would love to see you debate Blondie You'll find it hard to do so with someone who cannot be swayed from their position that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 20, 2007 20:32:54 GMT -5
Check it out, I'm the only "non-celebrity" that gets his own thread! I don't know whether to feel special or insulted . Did I ever say I was going to debate blondie on Christianity and atheism? Why would I do that? Will that change his/her mind (I still need that clarified since blondie is usually applied to a feminine personage)? I don't debate Christianity. As far as being new, yes that is true. But it doesn't take that long to read a few threads to get an idea of the projected personalities on here. So just because I have a low post count, don't think I can't read what's already been entered. Blondie is an atheist. So what. If a self-proclaimed atheist goes on the attack, defend. But when you start attacking back -- and if those attacks become insulting and or just a bunch of name calling -- what have you accomplished? You only give blondie or any other like him/her more reasons to continue in their line of reason. Its like a bully. As long as the bully knows he is getting to you he will continue. But if you just shrug your shoulders and ignore him, he goes on to pick on someone else. So look at it this way -- can you not see that blondie thrives on attacking Christianity and that with each negative post from you, s/he just becomes bolder? Someone on here -- may be phinehas or lawman, forget which -- paraphrased the concept of "dusting off" one's feet. Problem is, that person was back two or three post's later, picking up where he left off. My witness? Do you even know what witness is? Its not about pointing out the faults in others. Yes, I did that to you but only because I had seen that you were specifically responding to blondie's posts in an aggressive manner, and it was starting to look like a personal mission to do so. And yes, lawman does get a little overboard with his posts sometimes too. So knock it off lawman ;D. The difference here is that you two (phinehas and lawman) are purported Christians so your "attacks" on each other should be worked out amongst yourselves. If it gets beyond that, that's when others step in. It doesn't work the same way with a Christian and an unbeliever because the pagan does not have a true basis for reconciliation beyond their own conscience.
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 20, 2007 20:42:18 GMT -5
And yes, lawman does get a little overboard with his posts sometimes too. So knock it off lawman .
This says it all. Thanks for showing your true colors. Your witness is lost with me and I will discount any and all moral arguments of this nature from you.
\"I dont debate Christianity.\" That speaks volumes as well. You refer to it as debate, where other Christians refer to it as defense. You just sit back on your high chair and let others defend the faith, since you don\'t have the stomach for it.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 20, 2007 21:14:01 GMT -5
Ah starlag 13, I'll quote you a phrase from an old song: "Don't wanna be a man pleaser, wanna be a God pleaser". In other words, God didn't leave me behind to please everyone. Nor could I in any case. So if my witness is lost with you, oh well. Jesus' witness was lost on the Pharisees too. starlag 13 wrote So then note what phinehas wrote: And Please take a moment to read other people's posts and not specifically mine and realize that my use of the word debate was in direct response to phinehas. It shows your tendency to single me out as a target of your animosity. That's fine, if it makes you feel better, I'll continue to sit behind my shield of monitor and keyboard and grin. And I meant it when I said I wouldn't debate Christianity. Here is some definitions of debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
My faith is not something I argue about. I believe it and that's all I need. I can tell you or another person what I believe and why, but I'm not going to argue with you about it. Show me a single instance of Jesus arguing with anyone and I'll reconsider. You know, since the "attack" on me was initiated by phinehas and then resumed by starlag 13 -- and since phinehas has been banned (I think), one can assume that they are one in the same. Hey blondie, at least his focus is off you for a few posts...
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 20, 2007 21:23:57 GMT -5
And yes, lawman does get a little overboard with his posts sometimes too. So knock it off lawman . This says it all. Thanks for showing your true colors. Your witness is lost with me and I will discount any and all moral arguments of this nature from you. \"I dont debate Christianity.\" That speaks volumes as well. You refer to it as debate, where other Christians refer to it as defense. You just sit back on your high chair and let others defend the faith, since you don\'t have the stomach for it. For some reason, I'd think that Kevin would be more likely to take the high road and be tolerant to others... But what do I know? I'm just some old dummy from Delaware on a proxy connection... LOL
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 20, 2007 22:33:14 GMT -5
And what if you have no such coherent manifesto? I guess the only thing left is to ardhently deny that anything has any meaning, as blondie does. Does everything have to have a "meaning", or is that just something that makes people feel more secure because there aren't any unexplained mysteries about life and the world around us? (Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the simplest of mysteries, like when to use "puking material" in a sentence... LOL) BTW - Welcome to the forum Kevin, in case no one else has said it yet... Does something lack meaning if it isn't codified into blondies required manifesto? It is not that everything, "must have" meaning, but rather that everything does have some meaning, however insignificant or unconnected it is. I do not expect a professed atheist to invest the same belief in truths of a supposed revelation as religious adherents. I do expect an atheist to be able to discern the difference between one supposed "revealed truth" that calls for the violent subjugation, conversion or death of all unbelievers and another that does not. For instance: all religion is based on revealed truth. All revealed truth is equally valid. Would blondie actually read the manifesto if it was written? Or would the first criticsms that came to mind after reading the title suffice to stroke the athiest's ego. It may totally blow you mind, but I can glance at a web page or article and get the gist of it right away. Does blondie have such a manifesto? Forget postmodernism. I've been studying and writing about it for years and have my theories which are just as valid as anyones. You would probably agree with my postmodernism. That's the lovely thing about studying a completely relativist philosophy. You needn't get it right, you need only proclaim defiantly.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 20, 2007 23:14:11 GMT -5
Kevin, Since you are new to this forum, maybe you are new to forums in general as I was......about blondie.....this description may help you out....
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 20, 2007 23:14:54 GMT -5
Kevin, Since you are new to this forum, maybe you are new to forums in general as I was......about blondie.....this description may help you out....
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 20, 2007 23:16:04 GMT -5
Didn't mean to repost.......
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 21, 2007 0:06:40 GMT -5
You know, since the \"attack\" on me was initiated by phinehas and then resumed by starlag 13 -- and since phinehas has been banned (I think), one can assume that they are one in the same.
You said in another post that phinheas and lawman were the same person and that i was them also. Are you going to add in more people. I am also going to have to point out that the attack on you from phinheas was not initiated but was in reaction to you making a rather unchristian remark to him. That is why I posted to this topic. If i can go back and look at the posts anyone can. Again, I did get myself in this fight but I will be walking out of it considering the type of people involved.
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 21, 2007 0:17:15 GMT -5
For some reason, I\'d think that Kevin would be more likely to take the high road and be tolerant to others...
But what do I know? I\'m just some old dummy from Delaware on a proxy connection...
LOL
I will assume that you have been on this post board longer than me but so far kevin has not shown himself to be tolerant at all. It took him less than 20 posts on this post board to show his intolerance of another poster. maybe your definition of tolerance means something than mine. If you say you are a dummy i dont know if you are or not.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 21, 2007 8:55:14 GMT -5
You know, since the \"attack\" on me was initiated by phinehas and then resumed by starlag 13 -- and since phinehas has been banned (I think), one can assume that they are one in the same. You said in another post that phinheas and lawman were the same person and that i was them also. Are you going to add in more people. I am also going to have to point out that the attack on you from phinheas was not initiated but was in reaction to you making a rather unchristian remark to him. That is why I posted to this topic. If i can go back and look at the posts anyone can. Again, I did get myself in this fight but I will be walking out of it considering the type of people involved. Here's my "rather unchristian remark": Now that we have the statement isolated, please try very hard to convince everyone -- no, at least someone besides yourself and/or phinehas -- how the above is unchristian. I await your convincing response . If I see someone who is supposedly trying to defend Christianity but doing it such a way that is only making Christ look bad, I'll point it out. The largest cause of unbelief is people who call themselves Christian but whose lives do not reflect it. Matthew 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." "That they may see your good works". Constantly jabbing at another person, regardless of their (un)beliefs and attitude, is not going very far towards showing "good works" now is it?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 21, 2007 9:16:01 GMT -5
For some reason, I\'d think that Kevin would be more likely to take the high road and be tolerant to others... But what do I know? I\'m just some old dummy from Delaware on a proxy connection... LOL I will assume that you have been on this post board longer than me but so far kevin has not shown himself to be tolerant at all. It took him less than 20 posts on this post board to show his intolerance of another poster. maybe your definition of tolerance means something than mine. If you say you are a dummy i dont know if you are or not. Tolerance is over-rated. Kevin saw something that he thought was in error and commented. However "intolerant" starlag thinks this is, it is a comment on a message board. It was no threat nor implication of a threat. What meaning of "tolerance" super cedes Kevin's right, and as he may see it his Christian duty, to speak against that which he disagrees?
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 21, 2007 10:06:14 GMT -5
kevin,
Who said this?
Do you even know what witness is? Its not about pointing out the faults in others.
I will not continue this fight with you. You can fight with yourself. That will be my last comment to you on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 21, 2007 10:23:21 GMT -5
kevin, Who said this? Do you even know what witness is? Its not about pointing out the faults in others. I will not continue this fight with you. You can fight with yourself. That will be my last comment to you on this subject. Who's fighting? Certainly not me . And I'll now remind you that this is the 3rd time you said you wouldn't continue your "fight" with me ;D. As far as witness, I have never stated that "pointing out the fault in others" is part of a witness. You're just trying to pull in elements of my other posts to supposedly mock me. Too bad it doesn't work very effectively. Here, I'll show where my initial statement came from, in case you'd like to know: Luke 17:3 -- "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. I did the "rebuking". I'll also do the 2nd part, but as of yet, all I've received in return is defensive taunting. But, to be fair, I will admit that the 1st part of my statement may have been a little abrasive. I specifically pointed out the continuous use of the label "atheist" as the basis, but I should have mentioned that it was a total overall "attack" type mentality that I had noted that was most bothersome. So I really could have just asked that he (phinehas) stop rather than prefacing it with him not representing Christianity. For that I was wrong. I just dislike it that people give Christianity a bad wrap based the bad actions of a few.
|
|
|
Post by starlag 13 on Apr 21, 2007 10:32:53 GMT -5
Do you mean my reply to you below on another thread? I believe I explained why I posted it and that it was reasonable.
I posted it twice because there were two posts for me to respond to. Is that not reasonable? There is one more post that I will respond to and that should be it. There should be no further reason for you to communicate an issue with me, unless you want it to continue.
Apparently you want it to continue. Like the other argument you wish to continue, you can continue this new one with yourself as well.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 21, 2007 12:44:40 GMT -5
I'm losing count here. Is this now at least 5 times you've said you won't "respond" or "continue" to me? Dude, you are so easy to bait. You can't help but get the last word in. You might come back with me doing the same but I'm not the one who said he's going to stop at least 5 times. And quoting from your other post (I won't respond there because it was off topic anyways and this thread has my name in the subject line) Good luck with this. I think if you look back, all of our "conversations" (with the exception of me speculating on you being phinehas since you didn't show up until he was banned) were initiated by you. So who is stalking who ? Who came to this thread -- about me and blondie (I guess) -- and decided to pick up the what phinehas started but could not continue since he was banned? And maybe I missed it but you didn't start responding to other posts until I pointed out that you hadn't been. I don't really have the time to check into this . But if you leave (because of me ;D), I'm sure you'll be missed.
|
|