Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Neo-Scholastic]

You mean like the thread where I criticized him for making off-topic criticism of the character of the thread's participants, and he responded by making snide comments about me sucking the dicks of random truckers?

I profusely apologized to you publicly. What I said was nasty, uncalled for, and unChristian. Is there no forgiveness? Have you ever apologized to me for the truly appalling things you have said to me? Maybe you have but I do not remember. Have you not noticed how I consistently overlook your personal insults to discuss areas of intellectual disagreement?

[Catholic_Lady]

I think Neo would fit in perfectly here if he were Atheist. He's heavy on talking points and is wrapped up in that Us vs. Them mentality. He just happens to be on the wrong team.

Yeah, this is a good way of putting it. Thanks for getting it.

---

You mean like the thread where I criticized him for making off-topic criticism of the character of the thread's participants, and he responded by making snide comments about me sucking the dicks of random truckers?

I profusely apologized to you publicly. What I said was nasty, uncalled for, and unChristian. Is there no forgiveness? Have you ever apologized to me for the truly appalling things you have said to me? Maybe you have but I do not remember. Have you not noticed how I consistently overlook your personal insults to discuss areas of intellectual disagreement?

I have, Neo.

[Angrboda]

You mean like the thread where I criticized him for making off-topic criticism of the character of the thread's participants, and he responded by making snide comments about me sucking the dicks of random truckers?

I profusely apologized to you publicly. What I said was nasty, uncalled for, and unChristian. Is there no forgiveness? Have you ever apologized to me for the truly appalling things you have said to me? Maybe you have but I do not remember. Have you not noticed how I consistently overlook your personal insults to discuss areas of intellectual disagreement?

I never saw any such apology from you. Instead, I saw you justifying it with your "can dish it out but can't take it" comment. Regardless, I wasn't one of the ones criticizing you for your behavior in that thread. I thought your comments were somewhat inappropriate, but I chose not to mention it at the time. I only brought the matter up to add some balance to CL's claims. I did not bring it up simply to castigate you, nor do I intend to do so.

[brewer]

Anybody seen A Theist's most recent post, #24. He wants to take the safe zone and run with it discussing all manor of christianity.

Sounds to me like it might be time to shut it down. AFAIC it was barely a good idea to begin with.

JFC, now Dirch has also jumped with post #26. I didn't join AF to listen to a christian discussion with no chance for input.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I never saw any such apology from you.

If I didn't then I do now. I hope you can forgive me.

[Whateverist]

Anybody seen A Theist's most recent post, #24. He wants to take the safe zone and run with it discussing all manor of christianity.

Sounds to me like it might be time to shut it down. AFAIC it was barely a good idea to begin with.

JFC, now Dirch has also jumped with post #26. I didn't join AF to listen to a christian discussion with no chance for input.

Thanks for the heads up.  I won't bother checking back in on that thread.

However I would like to use an extra civil/no tangents forum for a couple of discussions I'd like to start.

[Drich]

Are you kidding?

I was bann in 2016 abruptly because of something I said in 2008. The morons on that web site could not find cause to ban me for anything current, in fact I remember I was rightfully having my way with a few of the heavy hitters over there including you and next time I signed on I was just got a screen that I was bann, no reason given. I had to sneak on as a guest to find out why I was kicked off. even a few of your members over there spoke out against how badly the mods handled that one. You are were impotently being forced feed and you only recourse was to go back to 20012 or 2008 or when ever I was originally ban, and if you honestly looked at why I was ban then it was for the same thing. You had no way to control me or protect your heavy hitters pride, it was all at my digression because i did indeed follow the rules and had sound theological arguments.

People can see for themselves, You really struggled as I gave you more rope to hang yourself with and the contradictions started piling up. All I did was ask questions.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-questions

are you a clinton, seriously? I went line by line page by page for 10 weeks and 22 pages of monster dialog per thread, and never once did you address any of the failures in basic christian comprehension I posted.. You know the critical errors in understanding that would have you assume a paradox in logic or an error in critical thinking, when comparing an answer I gave against what you understand my belief to be.... 

To this you said I struggled after 22 pages and 10 weeks/2 and 1/2 months to which I retain the final word. Seriously? your best efforts amount in name calling and trying to make me out to to be a hypocrite, all the while I had one arm tied behind my back in that I was not allowed to ask you/redirect any questions to you which allowed you to be on the offense the whole time...

You are seriously deluded if you think you came out on top in that exchange. ask anyone on this web site who is not a devoted fan of yours if a 22 page 2 and a half month of onslaught where you were on the attack and I on the defense (by Rule other wise you would not 'debate') is an example of me struggling. And you left the debate and would not address your repeated errors in miscatorgrizing the form of Christianity I was representing. it seems to me you only know of Catholicism and everyone must be catholic if the are christian.. or rather that is the only way you could get your contradictions/onslaught to work. Ignore my corrections and just repeat the same question adnauism. till you gave up and stopped responding.

[I_am_not_mafia]

are you a clinton, seriously? I went line by line page by page for 10 weeks and 22 pages of monster dialog per thread, and never once did you address any of the failures in basic christian comprehension I posted.. You know the critical errors in understanding that would have you assume a paradox in logic or an error in critical thinking, when comparing an answer I gave against what you understand my belief to be.... 

To this you said I struggled after 22 pages and 10 weeks/2 and 1/2 months to which I retain the final word. Seriously? your best efforts amount in name calling and trying to make me out to to be a hypocrite, all the while I had one arm tied behind my back in that I was not allowed to ask you/redirect any questions to you which allowed you to be on the offense the whole time...

You are seriously deluded if you think you came out on top in that exchange. ask anyone on this web site who is not a devoted fan of yours if a 22 page 2 and a half month of onslaught where you were on the attack and I on the defense (by Rule other wise you would not 'debate') is an example of me struggling. And you left the debate and would not address your repeated errors in miscatorgrizing the form of Christianity I was representing. it seems to me you only know of Catholicism and everyone must be catholic if the are christian.. or rather that is the only way you could get your contradictions/onslaught to work. Ignore my corrections and just repeat the same question adnauism. till you gave up and stopped responding.

This was my final question

Why should anyone on this forum, or any other forum, bother debating with you if you omit vital information as above, are unable to admit to being wrong (p200, p202, p198, p209), are hypocritical (p205, p150), use strawman arguments (p205, p150), are condescending (p25, p156), avoid defending statements because they are 'taken out of context' (p54), avoid answering questions (p68, p70, p72, p78, p103, p105, p162, p176, p184, p186, p188, p190, p192, p196, p198, p202), answer other questions that were not asked instead that you want to answer (p72, p136), are inconsistent (p96, p159, p195, p197, p201), willing to say something 100% factually wrong and will stand by it even when asked (p128 & p130, p147, p156), will come up with the most feeble of excuses when shown your own inconsistencies (p200, p204), do not read the links that you post (p146, p156, p190), play word games and resort to definitions as a distraction (p149, p153, p204), attack the other person's methods as a form of distraction when the questions get tough (p156, p205, p207, p212) and do not understand the logical fallacies you accuse other people of committing (p190) ?

This is what you argued:

• Free will is an illusion (p19, p59)
  
• Thinks that people who died before Jesus who were not Jews are either in Hell or given another go around after Christ, i.e. reincarnation (p35)
  
• Worships a god who is not considered fair and merciful by most people because he does not depend on "logical fallacy" (Argumentum ad populum) to pick his god. (p42)
  
• Believes in absolutes (p49) but we should refrain from speaking in absolutes (p118)
  
• Hell is an alternative to forced slavery under God (p51), there will be jobs in Heaven (p53) and some will be doing heavy lifting / slave labour (p53). Believes being a slave labourer under God in Heaven for an eternity will be a pleasant experience because people elected this fare and were designed that way (p59)
  
• God can only find 1 our 3 individuals that have the design that he wants (even though God designed them) (p66)
  
• Can't say that being free in Hell is unpleasant except for those that want to be with God (p62, p78). Thinks that being entombed in Hell is better for some people and isn't trying to scare people about Hell (p83). Some will find Hell unpleasant, others won't, it depends upon how much they hate God (p80)
  
• Chose to love God because he experienced a nano-second of his love (p85) and before this he chose to not believe (p89). Had a choice about loving God before a/s/k'ing but not afterwards (p45)
  
• Thinks that his knowledge of God was experienced and verified through an outside source (p110)
  
• Thinks that he uses the scientific method for determining truth (p143) yet does not understand what the scientific method is (p145, p154, p156)
  
• Thinks A/S/K is not a general theory but a formula (p156)
  
• Thinks that formulas consist of parables (p168)
  
• Beating up christians was his way of honouring and seeking God. For Paul of the Bible it was hunting them down and killing them (p170, p180). God commanded him to do this (p180)
  

[Whateverist]

JFC, now Dirch has also jumped with post #26. I didn't join AF to listen to a christian discussion with no chance for input.

Thanks for the heads up.  I won't bother checking back in on that thread.

However I would like to use an extra civil/no tangents forum for a couple of discussions I'd like to start.

Check that, I just went there to see what you might be talking about.  Was it AT's choice of music that you didn't like?  I actually like folk music so that didn't bother me and fact that it was done a cappella made it even better.

It is the gratuitous tossing in of scripture which tends to turn me off more.  But AT has a bit of a sense of humor about him that I don't object to.

Neo continues to beat the drum of xtian duty but I don't think everyone participating there really shares his enthusiasm for it.  Anyhow there is always ignore if anyone manages to become a complete bore.

[brewer]

are you a clinton, seriously? I went line by line page by page for 10 weeks and 22 pages of monster dialog per thread, and never once did you address any of the failures in basic christian comprehension I posted.. You know the critical errors in understanding that would have you assume a paradox in logic or an error in critical thinking, when comparing an answer I gave against what you understand my belief to be.... 

To this you said I struggled after 22 pages and 10 weeks/2 and 1/2 months to which I retain the final word. Seriously? your best efforts amount in name calling and trying to make me out to to be a hypocrite, all the while I had one arm tied behind my back in that I was not allowed to ask you/redirect any questions to you which allowed you to be on the offense the whole time...

You are seriously deluded if you think you came out on top in that exchange. ask anyone on this web site who is not a devoted fan of yours if a 22 page 2 and a half month of onslaught where you were on the attack and I on the defense (by Rule other wise you would not 'debate') is an example of me struggling. And you left the debate and would not address your repeated errors in miscatorgrizing the form of Christianity I was representing. it seems to me you only know of Catholicism and everyone must be catholic if the are christian.. or rather that is the only way you could get your contradictions/onslaught to work. Ignore my corrections and just repeat the same question adnauism. till you gave up and stopped responding.

Why should I believe you now drich? You're a liar for god, Mr. I have AIDS and got cured boy.