Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Shell B]

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.

They're using the debate section of the forum. The proposed "safe zone" has not been created. As long as they debate different subjects (and they all have to have differing views and actually debate them, imo), they're using that section correctly. Staff is still discussing the "civil section." That thread is not it.

[Godscreated]

I do know that some Christians do not see they are hurting people and it's because they think they can judge atheist because they do not believe. I think that some Christians understand they are hurting atheist and do so purposely because they believe it's the only way to reach them. I think some Christians do it to impress Christians who do hurt atheist. I know all those who do this are child like in their thinking and ignore the words of Jesus. Then you have Christians who try to witness and be polite and are laughed at from both sides. You need to remember when a Christian is speaking to an atheist about God's word he/she has a very hard time being honest without bring up what God's word says and you know what, many of those Christians have already applied those very things to their lives, I know I have, no one is harder on me than myself because I realize that I need all of God's word so my life can be better. The word of God has brought more hurt (justified hurt) to me than all the atheist on this site have over the past 8 years and I accept that hurt because I know it's justified and in the end will make me a better person/Christian.

If you want me to respect your choice to become a better Christian, why can't you respect my choice to become a better atheist?  Do you expect me to accept that you are in a better place to know what is right and best than I am?  What makes so many Christians hold such an un-humble position?  What makes you fit to make such a choice for others?

I've never asked you to respect my choices they are mine and as long as they benefit others then they can't be wrong, right. Just how does an atheist become a better atheist, most atheist here say atheism is only a non-belief in any god, so how can you get better at unbelief. Seems to me unbelief is just that with no need for improvement. Now if you are trying to become a better person I can respect that, however the better person I'm referring to for myself is one who cares more about others than myself. serving others in their needs whatever they may be. I have the God of the universe on my side who knows all things and I can receive knowledge from Him that is without a doubt correct and righteous, this is not being un-humble, it is having knowledge others may not be privy to. I do not make decisions for others don't have a desire to do so, my desire is to show others the way of Christ.

As for hurtful things to say to a Christian is to call them a theist, a theist can be many things but a Christian can only be a follower of Christ. 

It doesn't help your position to point out you are just as disrespectful toward theists who are not Christians as you are to atheists.  Just say you do not respect the right of your fellow man to decide what to believe for himself, and leave it at that.

 Wait a minute here pal, I have always said everyone has the free will to choose whatever in their lives and will always believe this. As long as people are willing to accept the results of their choices. Those who want to whine about not having certain things their way because of their choices will never get my respect for the choices they make.

GC

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

They're using the debate section of the forum. The proposed "safe zone" has not been created. As long as they debate different subjects (and they all have to have differing views and actually debate them, imo), they're using that section correctly. Staff is still discussing the "civil section." That thread is not it.

IMO it is up to the debate moderator to keep the focus of the discussion on topic. A_Theist's post ninja'd mine so I wasn't able to comment on it as outside the topic. If we, or any group, want to debate other issues within an invitation only setting those should be their own threads and generally respect the debate format however loosely.

[Minimalist]

He wants to take the safe zone and run with it discussing all manor of christianity.

Maybe they'll start burning each other at the stake again, M.H.  Just like the 15th century.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

[I_am_not_mafia]

#24

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. A Theist's post said nothing about the proposed civility subforum (aka, safe zone as you'd like to call it). I saw no talk of it anywhere on that debate thread.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

They're using the debate section of the forum. The proposed "safe zone" has not been created. As long as they debate different subjects (and they all have to have differing views and actually debate them, imo), they're using that section correctly. Staff is still discussing the "civil section." That thread is not it.

There are plenty of christian forums they can go to to chat about their religion from which atheists are barred. They don't need a section on AF as well.

---

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.

I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. A Theist's post said nothing about the proposed civility subforum (aka, safe zone as you'd like to call it). I saw no talk of it anywhere on that debate thread.

We're not allowed to post to that thread. Not even non-christian theists who would make the conversation more interesting.

[Godscreated]

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.

No he is not, he put forward questions that might be discussed in a previous post and we agreed that they were important enough to do so. You guys will have an opportunity at questioning what we have to say and it will be soon. I think this format is good because we can deal with certain questions without those who enjoy derailing conversations just because they do not like what's being said. Our points are there for everyone to read and if there are those who dislike them and I know there are some they do not have to read any of it. For the most part the atheist have been left out of the conversation/debate, we are not taking a free reign to run down the atheist here. You know we could have done this through PMs and none of you would have any idea we did it, we have actually agreed to open ourselves up so that you all might see who we really are. Do you not understand that we want you to see us as we are so that all of us can better get along in an open situation, I've already seen this happening and for me that's a good thing.

GC

[Foxaèr]

#24

Not really seeing the issue with that post.

[Drich]

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) ?

Let's do this randomly. Ill start with an example of each accusation P200 you said I can't admit to being wrong.
post 200:
Drich Wrote:
(15-04-2014 11:36 AM)Mathilda Wrote:
1a) You were commanded by God to bully christians in order to a/s (but not K as specified in post 92 of your conversion thread)
No.
My bullying was the fullfillment of the A/S/K process in it's entiriety.
My knocking at that time was manifest in the persistance of my bullying.

In post 92 of your conversion thread you say


(06-02-2014 08:56 PM)Drich Wrote:
Then instead of knocking I kick at the door of God by bullying Christians who were stupid enough to bring their bibles to school. and made a commitment to them to keep doing so till they stopped turning their cheeks and stopped me or if their God would have to stop me. To show me/prove to me I was wrong.

How can your bullying of christians be "the fullfillment of the A/S/K process in it's entiriety" when in post 92 of your conversion thread you said that you bullied christians instead of knocking?

1: post 92 is about A/S/K and experiencing God's love just before I was judged and sent to Hell. It has nothing to do with bulling people. (which another thing your post quotations are often misrepresentation of it actual content. i think I made mention of this several times) Your notes are bad or like in this case out right lie about what a ppost is supposed to be about. make you look studied and prepared till someone actually looks up all your BS.

what post 92 actually says:
You chose to love God because you experienced a 'nano second of His love for us' (post 85)

In post 45 you say that you no longer had a choice about whether to love God after you 'A/S/Ked'.

Why did you have a choice to love God after experiencing a 'nano second of his love for us', but did not have choice whether to love God after you 'A/S/Ked' ?

post 92 aside what did I say tell you on this subject that you do not understand the fundamentals of what I belief fore if you did you would see how the two are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather you are trying to force your understanding of Christianity on to what I have said and to you you see an error and will not listen too the truth.

198 is great:
Mathilda Wrote:
Post 108

(15-03-2014 09:57 PM)Drich Wrote:
yes


Post 194

(16-04-2014 06:25 AM)Drich Wrote:
A/S/King yeild proof of God, in the way of the Holy Spirit.
One can not serve what one does not first know to exist.


Why do you say in post 108 that you had a choice about serving God in stage 1 and in post 194 you say that you didn't?

One of is confused, can you in detail explain the contradiction you think you see here.

I simply ask what contradiction do you see. and you count this as me avoiding the question or denying some sort of wrong doing when I simply ask for clarity. then how do you respond?

You drop the question and move on. it's like all you were doing was make notes to compile lists like this one..

After 2 and 1/2 months all you have is this small list of mistakes or misunderstandings or even questions I asked you... you have done nothing but vet me, and highlight your own intellectual dishonesty. as of 3 random references I check, only one checked out and it was a misunderstanding not an attempt to avoid anything on my part.

You are a hot mess lady and will say or do anything no matter how dishonest to be presented in a favorable mind's light.