Interview

[Drich]

You're missing the point, Drich. You keep saying that we are on 'our high horse' and that we need to arbitrarily dismiss your arguments to make ourselves feel better when it isn't true.

You guys need to stop read posts directed at other people, and assuming that all are being addressed. I directed that comment at something SQ said. (In that no one on this website could ever stoop to such a level as to insult someone else's perceived weakness.)
You have shown yourself (99% of the time) to be a follower of content and directly address the material being discussed over looking the window dressing others need to even read a given post.

Of course, if I point out the obvious fact that you seem to be doing this right now, you will simply accuse me of it. At the end of the day, the person with facts is supported, and the one without is not.

What of the facts i presented? In that I have not made anyone dress me down or insult me. That oppertunity was presented and those looking for that type of oppertunity took it.

If you reject the facts we present, there is nothing we can do. And if you present ambiguous sources as 'solid' evidence, we will dismiss it. Of course, you will then accuse me of being the one to dismiss solid sources and say you have the actual facts.

do you have any examples?

We do; you just refuse to believe us.

The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day science works. Period. You would not be at this forum right now if it weren't for science. If you are willing to disregard something that has been objectively proven to be effective time and time again in favor of speculation and ancient texts of highly questionable accuracy, then what can we do?

somehow i get the feeling you didn't read or didn't follow the whole dialog SQ and I were having. If you did your going to have to explain this to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

[img]
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/image...Xek1RVxmvQ
[/img]

[IATIA]

[KichigaiNeko]

Go ahead, show your 'work' off. I've got hort homework to get on with.

Woa! Hang on a minute.... Are you trying to say that this Drippy is purporting to display his posts here as his 'work'?

Sorry WTF? To display such bad behaviour is a virtue?

Glad I remained an atheist

[Drich]

Work implies standards, research, objective, goals, purpose, addressing tasks that one may shy away from if he was not tasked to do so. I've made no attempt to hide my efforts here. from thread #1 I spelled out my mission statement. Yes this is work for me, but thankfully I love what I do.

[thesummerqueen]

God he's so self-sacrificing, isn't he?

Making sure we heathens know the word of god. I hope he didn't find out along the way that a good many of the people on this forum are better versed in history and scripture than most of the Christians encountered at any point in their lives.

[Drich]

God he's so self-sacrificing, isn't he?

Making sure we heathens know the word of god. I hope he didn't find out along the way that a good many of the people on this forum are better versed in history and scripture than most of the Christians encountered at any point in their lives.

Some are way more knoweledgable, most only think they are. In my honest observation the majority of the 'superior' knoweledge comes from anti God/Christian web sites. I know this to be true because you can see the same errors in theology repeated over and over again, and after 5 years of doing this it has become easier to spot some of the more popular arguements.

That said there are a few who do their own work and build their own conclusions. the only problem there is they generally start with a Roman Catholic foundation. Which is a form of Christianity, but it's not biblical Christianity. In that final authority is not found in the bible but to the one wearing the pope's hat.

Which means alot of the foundational principles these guys base thier arguement from are not consistant with Biblically based Christianity. Alot of the terms they use are with out proper context and meaning (The word "Morality" being a prime and most recent example.) The RCC uses this word synomously with God's Perfect Righteousness. The RCC even refers to God as being Moral. When infact the bible makes a clear distinction between Man's personal version of Righteousness or (Self righteousness) and the Perfect Righteous Standard of God.

Because of this the heavy hitters on this website base all sorts of theologically flawed arguements on the idea that the moral standard is shared and the this standard affords the oppertunity for man, to judge God. So rather than use a true standard of righteousness, most use the one they have applied to their lives and honestly believe themselves to be morally superior to God. Thus pointing to the conclusion that one does not need forgiveness from a God who does 'things' that they themselves would not do.

So, again yes there are a few who are well versed in what they believe, and they are well versed in how to look up topical information, and compile it to defend their various positions. That however does not mean they have a complete understanding of the bible. There is no one on this website (myself included) that comes any where close to being able to accuratly claim that.

[thesummerqueen]

That however does not mean they have a complete understanding of the bible.

I didn't say they did. I'm pretty sure the heavy hitters on the site don't use your "correct" standard of righteousness because they don't base their lives on an iron age collection of stories, nor make special-pleading arguments for a being that can't (or won't) prove its existence.

My comment was a rather sarcastic expression of scorn, partially based on what you said and partially based on the idea that Christians have to spread their good word at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, "errors in theology". This will never sink in with you, but between two differing assessments of said bullshit, there is no such thing. There is only the fiction (or interpretation) you prefer...and the fiction (or interpretation) that another prefers.

[Creed of Heresy]

So much for Christian acceptance. Excommunications still exist?

I am still welcome to attend, just not partisipate 'unsupervised.'

You have to go through actual interviews to get into a church??

The interview is for a possiable teaching position.

Wow, they [the churches] have some awfully bloated opinions on their relevance and worth in the world, don't they?

They are simply being faithful to their understanding of the bible.

I wouldn't tell them you consort with atheists. They'll probably kick you out on your ass almost instantly. Churches are awfully quick to judge despite the teachings of their messiah telling people to never do that. Proof: You have to go through an interview, which is essentially a judgment panel.

The command is "Judge not lest you be judged in the same way you judge others." Meaning whatever you use to judge other people that standard will be used to judge you. The command is not: "Don't judge." The command is: "Don't be a hipocrite."

But hey, I won't say you shouldn't use anything here for said interview; by all means, cherry-pick that which works for you and that which does not...er...I mean...I am sure you'll be completely fair and unbiased about what you've read and engaged in here.

If I was looking to do this dishonestly then why would I ask to use any of this above board?

Ohh, I gotcha. That makes it a little more understandable, at least. I thought they were basically stating "you wanna pray with us? THEN PROVE YOU ARE WORTHY." XD That shit had me dumbstruck.