Two possibilities...

[Crossless2.0]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

Next time if you take issue with anything I say, then take it to me first/Pm me. (or not I have no issue hashing it out in public, I just think it is better to try and follow what the bible says about Christian conflict rather than brother against brother in the heathen arena) (for you stims)

To steal an oft-used response by my favorite AF non-denominational, Bible-believing Korean-American Christian:



Yes, by all means, present that united front, boys!

[Drich]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

What does the colour of his skin have to do with it? 


  

Couldn't resist, sorry.

Christian not Smash Christian in front of ape/man.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Christian not Smash Christian in front of ape/man.

We get it, Drich. But that's the point. You're willing to smash us because we're infidels, but woe betide, if you go after a fellow Believer.

Can you truly not see how we might take this as evidence that you see us as enemies, to whom you can do things you would not do to friends, and thus should be perceived as an enemy in return?

[Drich]

Wow, Drich. Way to spell out why all the Catholics are frauds. Rather than answering your nonsense (like completely missing my point about picking and choosing focus  doctrine, re: divorce v. gayness), I'll just let the Catholics here tear you up on that one.

Actually, no. I clearly state Catholics have just as much access to God as do the rest of Christianity. what I am pointing out is the only one bright and shinning light in an otherwise Godless world, is unfounded. Why? Because no one will ever be admitted into Heaven because they were born under or in the right 'church tradition.' It is an assureance that most Catholics rely too heavily on, because of this supposed trail of command leading back to Peter. When in fact all the apstoles had their own Churches/denominational teachings. Again that is why their was such a large divide among first century followers, and why Peter and Paul for a time were at odds.

Again If Peter Had supreme authority over the church then why are we NOT mandated to first be converted to Judaism then Christianity, or segerated into Judiazier/Gentile Christian groups? This was the norm in Peter's churches, but Paul taught against this teaching, which lead to division even among believers then. Ultimatly the church adopted Paul's teaching over that of Peter. So again if Peter had supreme authority as the catholics suggest then why could he not convince the Church of HIS OWN DAY to follow him without question as the catholics follow the pope?

Again the point being that all men are falliable including the Great Peter and Paul, and every 'pope' or other religious leader since the church was first established. Which is why we must make a great divide between the religions of man, and the prescribed worship of God. If the religions of man is not directly supported by the bible then that religion no matter how old or 'traditional' is not following the prescribed worship God Himself places in the bible. Therefore that action/worship can not be considered Offical Christian Worship. Does all worship need be 'official' or it is considered a sin? No, absolutely not. Just so long as it does not violate any of the established sin/laws.

[Drich]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

Next time if you take issue with anything I say, then take it to me first/Pm me. (or not I have no issue hashing it out in public, I just think it is better to try and follow what the bible says about Christian conflict rather than brother against brother in the heathen arena) (for you stims)

What you can't recognize a fellow christard?

The fact is, no two christards believe the same thing. Jesus tells different lies to everyone.

...And who says we all need to believe the same thing in order to be Christian?

[Reforged]

Wow, Drich. Way to spell out why all the Catholics are frauds. Rather than answering your nonsense (like completely missing my point about picking and choosing focus  doctrine, re: divorce v. gayness), I'll just let the Catholics here tear you up on that one.

Actually, no. I clearly state Catholics have just as much access to God as do the rest of Christianity. what I am pointing out is the only one bright and shinning light in an otherwise Godless world, is unfounded. Why? Because no one will ever be admitted into Heaven because they were born under or in the right 'church tradition.' It is an assureance that most Catholics rely too heavily on, because of this supposed trail of command leading back to Peter. When in fact all the apstoles had their own Churches/denominational teachings. Again that is why their was such a large divide among first century followers, and why Peter and Paul for a time were at odds.

Again If Peter Had supreme authority over the church then why are we NOT mandated to first be converted to Judaism then Christianity, or segerated into Judiazier/Gentile Christian groups? This was the norm in Peter's churches, but Paul taught against this teaching, which lead to division even among believers then. Ultimatly the church adopted Paul's teaching over that of Peter. So again if Peter had supreme authority as the catholics suggest then why could he not convince the Church of HIS OWN DAY to follow him without question as the catholics follow the pope?

Again the point being that all men are falliable including the Great Peter and Paul, and every 'pope' or other religious leader since the church was first established. Which is why we must make a great divide between the religions of man, and the prescribed worship of God. If the religions of man is not directly supported by the bible then that religion no matter how old or 'traditional' is not following the prescribed worship God Himself places in the bible. Therefore that action/worship can not be considered Offical Christian Worship. Does all worship need be 'official' or it is considered a sin? No, absolutely not. Just so long as it does not violate any of the established sin/laws.

So in other words; you have custody over God but religion is allowed to take him out for ice-cream on weekends.

[robvalue]

When people have to chat in private to get their story straight, it doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Drich]

Christian not Smash Christian in front of ape/man.

We get it, Drich. But that's the point. You're willing to smash us because we're infidels, but woe betide, if you go after a fellow Believer.

Can you truly not see how we might take this as evidence that you see us as enemies, to whom you can do things you would not do to friends, and thus should be perceived as an enemy in return?

Seriously?!?!

Did you not read the 1000 word essay I sent to Randy? I have no trouble defending my beliefs no matter where or who challenges them. I simply expressed to Randy, as a fellow believer we have a written protocol on how to handel disagreements. "If a brother sins against you pull him to the side privately and tell him of his offence." I was reminding Randy that this was what 'we' are supposed to do. it would have been something I would have done if I had look at his faith status before replying. I just assumed that he was a non believer because All the other believers on this site do this if what one of us says is too far out there. Not that I nor anyone has had to do this often.. (maybe once or twice since I've been here)

That said, I pulled no punches nor did I treat Randy any differently than I would have any of you. And, even on occasion when of you go too far left or way off base and my response would/could be exceedingly harsh I will PM it directly to you so as to not make you/atheist in general look really foolish or really bad in front of your peers. (there are one or two of you following and commenting on this thread that could set up and verify this, for me)

Their is an opposition between where I stand and your side of the fence, but no ill will.

[Drich]

Actually, no. I clearly state Catholics have just as much access to God as do the rest of Christianity. what I am pointing out is the only one bright and shinning light in an otherwise Godless world, is unfounded. Why? Because no one will ever be admitted into Heaven because they were born under or in the right 'church tradition.' It is an assureance that most Catholics rely too heavily on, because of this supposed trail of command leading back to Peter. When in fact all the apstoles had their own Churches/denominational teachings. Again that is why their was such a large divide among first century followers, and why Peter and Paul for a time were at odds.

Again If Peter Had supreme authority over the church then why are we NOT mandated to first be converted to Judaism then Christianity, or segerated into Judiazier/Gentile Christian groups? This was the norm in Peter's churches, but Paul taught against this teaching, which lead to division even among believers then. Ultimatly the church adopted Paul's teaching over that of Peter. So again if Peter had supreme authority as the catholics suggest then why could he not convince the Church of HIS OWN DAY to follow him without question as the catholics follow the pope?

Again the point being that all men are falliable including the Great Peter and Paul, and every 'pope' or other religious leader since the church was first established. Which is why we must make a great divide between the religions of man, and the prescribed worship of God. If the religions of man is not directly supported by the bible then that religion no matter how old or 'traditional' is not following the prescribed worship God Himself places in the bible. Therefore that action/worship can not be considered Offical Christian Worship. Does all worship need be 'official' or it is considered a sin? No, absolutely not. Just so long as it does not violate any of the established sin/laws.

So in other words; you have custody over God but religion is allowed to take him out for ice-cream on weekends.

wow, ralphie where have you been?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

When people have to chat in private to get their story straight, it doesn't fill me with confidence.

Frankly, I kind of wish they'd all get together and get their stories straight. 

I'm tired of arguing No True Scotsman with each one, both insisting that they have the Only Right Version of Christianity™, and that when I try to sum up what the Christian view of something is, they pull out the "you just don't understand Christianity and that's why you're an atheist" bullshit.

It's exhausting trying to keep up.

"No, we don't  believe in purple polka-dotted unicorns, we believe in red and blue striped  unicorns! You just don't understand anything about our doctrines! Stupid atheist!!!"