Was banned for asking...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2011, 12:10 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Good afternoon all. Smile
Hi S.T. - Again, sorry for the quick skim but a couple of niggling things caught my eye...
(oops ahead of time for any typos, misspellings, and nutshells here, I'm rushed as usual) Rolleyes

Quote:But how many here do not have to have faith that all that science presents as fact is after all, fact?
There might be an assumption that all free thinkers, atheists, non-theists, etc.,. (however people identify themselves) are the same and share exactly the same perceptions, ideas, and conceptual understanding of the world around them. When indeed, there are all sorts of people who view existence to be governed by no conviction whatsoever to the relationship of continually changing processes involved in the gathering of fact. Though I have seen a few stumble in this area, fact and faith, are not interchangeable words. To be a bit more accurate; the gathering of scientific evidence is merely the beginning of the study of the processes which contribute to the understanding of the universe. As information is gathered, current knowledge is expanded to include newly discovered processes. This further expansion of knowledge continues to provide numerous avenues and sources, for even greater research into more knowledge beyond that which we already know. I use the words 'knowledge' and 'fact' with dubious integrity for they are themselves continually growing and in a state of flux -the majority of a concept might be solid, but will continue to be added to and whittled at, as the variety of discoveries beyond current limitations come about.

Quote:I will not place you into my opinion of what an atheist is like, but rather, will seek to understand why you believe the way you do.
Indeed, you have placed me into your opinion of what an atheist is like. You have assumed that I and everyone here are a collection of people who view scientific evidence as an end result. It may be part of our suspicious nature for us all to make assumptions now and then, but I do try to place my assumptions upon very trivial things which I hope will not effect, or at least intentionally hurt another. I try to keep many of those assumptions to myself and not let it effect my tolerance of others. I've come to the understanding that every single individual is so completely unique beyond any other individual I have, or will ever know.

Quote:Okay, if you don;t mind, what exactly gives you the absolute conviction that there is no God?
I have never stated that I have any absolute conviction that there is no God. This might be conjecture on your behalf. There may yet be a "God"; the very challenge to go beyond that which I've already discovered, tells me that I know nothing of what I will discover next… so, why would I stop at a "be-all-and-end-all" conclusion now?
The only thing I can and will commit to, and state very emphatically as fact about myself, is that I do not know. I can also state with absolute conviction, the fact that I do not know, does not concern me. A supernatural concept of governance is not necessary for existence; at this time, I have simply found it far too limited and therefore, limiting.

Just to give the thought pot one last, little stir …
I am able to state with great conviction that there might be a God… are you able to state with just as much conviction or even an inkling notion that there might not be a God?
I'm not concerned with an answer; the question was for you so... the answer will be for you.
Heart
Yikes-look at the time! - Gotta hit the road!
Lovely weekend, all.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2011, 03:28 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  Good afternoon all. Smile
Hi S.T. - Again, sorry for the quick skim but a couple of niggling things caught my eye...
(oops ahead of time for any typos, misspellings, and nutshells here, I'm rushed as usual) Rolleyes

Hello again, and thanks for the response. (niggling...cool word, are you English?)


(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:But how many here do not have to have faith that all that science presents as fact is after all, fact?
There might be an assumption that all free thinkers, atheists, non-theists, etc.,. (however people identify themselves) are the same and share exactly the same perceptions, ideas, and conceptual understanding of the world around them. When indeed, there are all sorts of people who view existence to be governed by no conviction whatsoever to the relationship of continually changing processes involved in the gathering of fact. Though I have seen a few stumble in this area, fact and faith, are not interchangeable words. To be a bit more accurate; the gathering of scientific evidence is merely the beginning of the study of the processes which contribute to the understanding of the universe. As information is gathered, current knowledge is expanded to include newly discovered processes. This further expansion of knowledge continues to provide numerous avenues and sources, for even greater research into more knowledge beyond that which we already know. I use the words 'knowledge' and 'fact' with dubious integrity for they are themselves continually growing and in a state of flux -the majority of a concept might be solid, but will continue to be added to and whittled at, as the variety of discoveries beyond current limitations come about.

You sound vaguely familiar. If you were familiar with my postings, you would know that our view in this is very similar. I do not put people into categories, but try to understand individuals on...an individual basis.

While I would agree with much that is said here, it does not change the fact that many in this world have a belief not only in God (though which one/s varies greatly dependant upon their faith), but in life after death and the supernatural.

All of which, though widely believed in diverse manners, cannot be verified by science.

I did say I assumed you to be an atheist, and stated it was an assumption and asked forgiveness if I were wrong. I have since then noticed that your tag is, "If you don't sin...Jesus died for nothing. This at the very least shows both a disbelief in the New Testament and what it teaches concerning Jesus, as well as a lack of concern for offending those who do believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

Both of which are disturbing. When "tolerance" is appealed to (I try to keep many of those assumptions to myself and not let it effect my tolerance of others.), does it seem strange that this entire "defense" rings a bit hollow?

Granted, this is an atheist forum (which is just another bit of data leading to the assumption that you are an atheist), and granted, you have every right to mock and ridicule the God that so many worship, and any god, for that matter.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:I will not place you into my opinion of what an atheist is like, but rather, will seek to understand why you believe the way you do.
Indeed, you have placed me into your opinion of what an atheist is like.

Sorry, but no, I have not.

However, you should be aware that I am just as critical of myself as well as any who claim to "believe in God, or, a god."



(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  You have assumed that I and everyone here are a collection of people who view scientific evidence as an end result.


This is something that in general you will not be able to deny. Most here have asserted faith in evolution based upon scientific findings, and will not even hint that it is a theory, rather than fact.

Going beyond that, the refutations of scripture are taken as fact, gaining the applause of all who take for granted that the verses given and the refutations are sound.

I have not, however, implied that all atheists are like puppets, but have continuosly sought to discuss issues with the indivduals that have been willing to converse.

I think the public record will bear that out.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  It may be part of our suspicious nature for us all to make assumptions now and then,

This is something that I try hard not to do. I am not perfect in this, but I do try not to categorize people because of their beliefs, because I know that even those that believe comparably are still diverse in character (for instance).

The same is true of "believers."

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  but I do try to place my assumptions upon very trivial things which I hope will not effect, or at least intentionally hurt another.

So you assumed that no believer would come to an atheist forum, therefore you place as a tag an extremely offensive statement, right?

Those who use foul language assume that no children will come here?

Actually, assumption prompted your first response to me. Deny that. Based on a few posts you though you had me figured out, right? Perhaps you did. However, should you decide to engage in further discussion, perhaps I can persuade you that I am not, after all, categorizing atheists.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  I try to keep many of those assumptions to myself and not let it effect my tolerance of others.

There are actually two "tolerances" to consider: 1) thaat which we express in real life; 2) that which is actually in our hearts.

Scripture rightly says, "Out of the mouth comes the abundance of the heart."

If we are opposed to something, our "tolerance" level may differ dependant upon circumstances. If we believe we are among those who are in agreement with that which is in our hearts, we may speak what is in our hearts more openly.

If I go back and look at the sixteen or so posts that came before your response to me...what would I find?

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  I've come to the understanding that every single individual is so completely unique beyond any other individual I have, or will ever know.

And you are right in having that understanding. I am in full agreement.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  
Quote:Okay, if you don;t mind, what exactly gives you the absolute conviction that there is no God?
I have never stated that I have any absolute conviction that there is no God.

As one that believes that the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, I have to say that to make diminutive the work of the Cross is an absolute statement to the fact that you do not, in truth, believe in the God that is found in the Bible.

That you might entertain ideas that there may be "a" god or perhaps even gods is not exactly compelling evidence that you are as openminded as perhaps you might like to project.

If you did actually believe there may be a God, it seems to me that you would investigate this as so many people do. By looking at the religions of the world, perhaps. Have you done this and come to the conclusion that you are free to mock God? And before denying that you have, consider: to mock Jesus Christ and the work of the Cross is to mock God.

And while I am used to the ridicule most atheists engage in, have you ever thought that this might conflict with what might actually be "tolerance?" You see, I consider myself a very tolerant person, except where doctrine is concerned. And while doctrine is usually something I discuss with professed believers, I am also willing to look at doctrine with those who do not consider themselves believers. And your initial response to me, I am guessing...no, assuming, was prompted by my statement to the effect that the claims offered by some atheists to "knowing" scripture better than believers was laughable.


(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  This might be conjecture on your behalf.

Part assumption, because you had as of yet not made a profession of your beliefs. Part observation of certain indicators that would of course lead me to that assumption.

But didn't I say that it was in fact an assumption?

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  There may yet be a "God"; the very challenge to go beyond that which I've already discovered, tells me that I know nothing of what I will discover next… so, why would I stop at a "be-all-and-end-all" conclusion now?

Who does? The efforts of man to understand God have typically always been a life pursuit, with no end before life ends.

The question is, how will man learn about God? Most will look to holy writing, some to holy men, and some will just create a god that sits well with their conscience.

But when one either decides there is a God, or that there isn't, there will usually be a resulting effect to their life.

Sometimes the result is unfortunate.

Sometimes it is glorious.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  The only thing I can and will commit to, and state very emphatically as fact about myself, is that I do not know.

And I applaud you, really, for saying that. You are the first one I have talked to here that has made this statement, other than one guy hwo, best as I can figure, is in the process of yielding to a "new age" type of belief. Because time is short, I have not yet had the chance to talk to him, but, I am curious as to the progression of his "research," and believe I have already witnessed a slight change of position in the short time I have been here.

Fascinating, really.


(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  I can also state with absolute conviction, the fact that I do not know, does not concern me.

Does that position make sense? Doesn't it seem that if it is true, this would be vitally important?

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  A supernatural concept of governance is not necessary for existence;

Agreed. At least, I will admit that man can exist apart from God. Wish I could say that a relationship with Him would be a cure-all for all ills, but, I would not be saying that which I believe scripture teaches.

A relationship with God can at times be difficult, meaning, as we grow in knowledge, our eyes are 9and this is my belief, mind you) opened to things not considered before, and sometimes knowledge is not always pleasant.

Especially when it concerns ourselves.

You know the old saying, "Ignorance is bliss."

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  at this time, I have simply found it far too limited and therefore, limiting.


I would be curious as to know what you mean by "limited." I think I can "assume" what you mean by "limiting," but feel free to expand on this as well.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  Just to give the thought pot one last, little stir …

Stir away.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  I am able to state with great conviction that there might be a God…

Though you can, with great conviction, belittle Christ and the Cross. I would be curious as to the basis for this.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  are you able to state with just as much conviction or even an inkling notion that there might not be a God?

Actually, no. Atheists feel that there is no "proof" or evidence that the new birth and the indwelling of God is true. Some here have said, "I went to church for such and such a time...and it wasn't real."

When asked about the doctrine of the church, one person did not reply, except to chastize me for my "assumptioms" that their faith was not valid. Ironically, it was lost on the person that scripture teaches that a departure is evidence that...their faith was not valid.

The new birth is a supernatural act of God which is not brought about due to the efforts of man, and that there are results that the believer can witness as well as those that know them cannot be denied, except by those who have never experienced it.

Make what you like of that, I have discussed this with quite a few atheists (and I speak of atheists in general, not you). An example of this would be like me talking to an alcoholic who despairs that he will never be able to quit. I can assure him of the possibility, but he will not understand my position until he does quit.

Its an, "I've been in your shoes but you have not walked in mine" kind of a thing.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  I'm not concerned with an answer; the question was for you so... the answer will be for you.
Heart

Well, my responses, as with all of my posts, are directed at the individual as well. I am truly sorry that you have gotten the impression that I paint all atheists with the same brush, and I hope in the future I might be able to persuade you that I don't.

(08-10-2011 12:10 PM)kim Wrote:  Yikes-look at the time! - Gotta hit the road!
Lovely weekend, all.

Thanks for the reply.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2011, 06:10 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Quote:S.T.Ranger said:

When asked about the doctrine of the church, one person did not reply, except to chastize me for my "assumptioms" that their faith was not valid. Ironically, it was lost on the person that scripture teaches that a departure is evidence that...their faith was not valid.

You have been approached on this point by more than one person even within this thread, ST. Your smugness verges on passive aggressive. I don't say that as a gotcha, I really mean it. I believe passive aggressive behavior is part of the outcome of biblical faith. What was lost, ST? Who lost ST? You are full of assumptions ST. simply because your beliefs demand it. Your faith IS an assumption by it's existence. Your faith has taught you an assumption that "a departure is evidence that...their faith was not valid". This is an illogical, arrogant position, ST. It is one of the many gotchas that most religions and monarchies and controlling political systems have utilized for thousands of years. If you rely on your scripture for your evidence, then your scripture or rather your interpretation of it is illogical and arrogant. That is what you have learned from it.

Quote:An example of this would be like me talking to an alcoholic who despairs that he will never be able to quit. I can assure him of the possibility, but he will not understand my position until he does quit.

Its an, "I've been in your shoes but you have not walked in mine" kind of a thing.

Quit what, ST? Atheism is not alcoholism. Religion is a perfect example of being intoxicated uncontrollably by a poisonous substance. Atheism or any form of reason that approaches free human thought can be the process of being free of the hallucinating effects of an addiction. As far as the "your shoes, my shoes" statement, I find that belittling and a perfect example of how you reduce thinking people to a form that suits your need to prove your false position by manipulation.

I will continue to hammer at the idea that you think you and your biblical beliefs allow you to put non-believers into an, "I am better than you, more blessed than you, more enlightened by god and more chosen than you" position based on attitude basted in a saucy covering of controlled peace and tranquility.

I don't mince words ST. I also don't start and finish most conversations with, "gee, I haven't really had time to think about this or time to read or answer you, I'm just so busy and this is too beneath me..." kind of statement. Why do you think you need to do that? You do this all the time. I'm talking about you not kim. Whether it's true or not it might be enlightening to ask yourself why it is necessary to tell us this.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like defacto7's post
08-10-2011, 10:11 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
BTW... kim - You are brilliant! Keep it up.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2011, 01:30 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
As for "offensive" ... I saw the signature quote on a teeshirt and thought it funny and appropriate to a FREE thinking website. It was either that or a favorite quote: "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholics school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." But I thought it a little long for a signature.
Ah, the frustrations, hmm S. T....
I'm convinced more than ever that humor will be the only thing left to bear witness to a polarized society.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
10-10-2011, 05:50 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(09-10-2011 01:30 PM)kim Wrote:  As for "offensive" ... I saw the signature quote on a teeshirt and thought it funny and appropriate to a FREE thinking website. It was either that or a favorite quote: "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholics school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." But I thought it a little long for a signature.
Ah, the frustrations, hmm S. T....
I'm convinced more than ever that humor will be the only thing left to bear witness to a polarized society.

Just imagine, for a minute, that Jesus is up in heaven looking down at Christians. As he had been cruelly tortured and killed on a cross, he must be pretty pissed off at all the people reminding him of the fact by displaying crucifixes everywhere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
10-10-2011, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2011 07:24 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Was banned for asking...
(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
Quote:S.T.Ranger said:

When asked about the doctrine of the church, one person did not reply, except to chastize me for my "assumptioms" that their faith was not valid. Ironically, it was lost on the person that scripture teaches that a departure is evidence that...their faith was not valid.

You have been approached on this point by more than one person even within this thread, ST.

Hello Defacto, perhaps you would like to elaborate about what point it is that I have been approached with?

Is it your baseless charge that I have vaunted myself above atheists? Please quote me where I do this.





(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Your smugness verges on passive aggressive.

Examples? It sounds like to me that something I have said has offended you, though I am not sure if it is just the fact that I am a Christian, or if it has been something in particular I believe. It certainly hasn't been passive aggression, though I admit, being human, I also can get irritated. However, I try very hard not to respond to posts emotionally, as it defeats the very purpose I have in being here.

Perhaps you would like to explain why I am here, I have stated this repeatedly since being here.

If you find me smug, well, perhaps that is how I have come across to you. Sorry about that, really. But it is most likely something "lost in the translation," seeing that we speak two ver different languages, so to speak, and our beliefs differ so greatly. I alo think that interpretive skills (and I am talking about just reading posts) also differ. This will, in my opinion, depend upon the interpreter.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I don't say that as a gotcha, I really mean it.

You think you..."got me?" This is interesting. Okay, that's great, please elaborate. I hope this post itself is not the "smoking gun."

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I believe passive aggressive behavior is part of the outcome of biblical faith.

Which shows a complete misunderstanding of biblical doctrine. Though, I will say that it does reflect a shallow knowledge of religion and mainstream media Churchianity, perhaps influenced by personal bias.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  What was lost, ST?


It's very simple: that departure from "the faith" is taught in scripture as indicating a false profession of faith. Not a hard concept. If you are interested in seeing the basis for that concept, let me know.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Who lost ST?

Who said anything about someone losing? This is what you need to understand, Defacto, this is not a competition, it is just conversation. I do not have a scoreboard I am taking score on.

Apparently it is you that want to turn this into a conflict.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  You are full of assumptions ST.

Okay...show me. I am willing to take a reproach.

I stated very clearly that I was assuming that Kim was an atheist, and this is one assumption I own up to. Care to show me the others?


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  simply because your beliefs demand it.

My faith...demands that I assume?

My faith is based upon what scripture teaches. Belief in those doctrines does not lead to assumption. In fact, this is one of the reasons that I believe so many grow up to reject God...because the doctrine itself is not properly taught. And I will add that atheism is not a new movement, it is as ancient as the world itself, I believe. As is false worship.

So instead of having a faith based upon a clear understanding of what scripture teaches, you have people who believe what they believe due to conditioning, poor instruction, bias motivated by personal desire...the list could go on.

If there is one thing, Defacto, that I try to avoid...that is assumption.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Your faith IS an assumption by it's existence.

You obviously are confused as to what faith is. While you might see a correlation between faith and assumption (and that is natural, you believe that I "assume" there is a God), understand that faith is a result of the work of God in the hearts of men. If you would like to see my biblical basis for that, be glad to show you.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Your faith has taught you an assumption that "a departure is evidence that...their faith was not valid".

Actually, no. It is the Bible that teaches that. My faith is a result of the scriptures, not the other way around.

It is hardly an assumption that if one departs from faith in Christ (and the assumption is that they had faith in Christ, not that they departed), then their faith was one of association...not a valid faith that resulted in the new birth.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  This is an illogical, arrogant position, ST.

If you want to talk about logic, perhaps you could explain how it is that this tirade is logical? The arguments presented here are baseless, you have called my posting passive agressive, and yet you have have done nothing but give...opinion.

Show me my passive agression, show me where what I said to Kim was out of line, and I will be happy to look at that with you.

Or perhaps, maybe it is thought that it is logical to vent on me without actually presenting evidence to back up the charges?


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  It is one of the many gotchas that most religions and monarchies and controlling political systems have utilized for thousands of years.

If you were even partly familiar with my beliefs, you would understand that that I am, in part at least, in agreement.

At no time have I been an advocate of religion, nor have I sought to "make excuses" for the atrocities that have been committed in the past, nor those going on today, but have been open in my feelings concerning religion.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between religion and a relationship with God does not excuse you, though. If you want to have animosity toward me for the sake of animosity, fine, I am use to that. But if you want to actually have a conversation in which you point out my errors...even better.

That religion has sought to control men for the sake of power is something that goes beyond the atheism/religion debate, it is a pattern that is found throughout history apart from personal belief concerning God.

Fear is a controller, but...it is not just corporate fear that controls, but personal fear as well.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  If you rely on your scripture for your evidence, then your scripture or rather your interpretation of it is illogical and arrogant.

How would you know? I have not thrust my interpretations on you, or anyone else here. I have responded when it has been brought up.

This shows your willingness to reject something...despite the facts. Why is that?

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  That is what you have learned from it.

Again, you have no idea what I have learned.

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
Quote:An example of this would be like me talking to an alcoholic who despairs that he will never be able to quit. I can assure him of the possibility, but he will not understand my position until he does quit.

Its an, "I've been in your shoes but you have not walked in mine" kind of a thing.


Quit what, ST?

The context of the statement: quit alcohol.

You have interpreted this as me comparing alcohol abuse to atheism, and I did not do that. The comparison is between my faith and those who do not have faith. Not saying, or implying, atheism is as bad as alcoholism.

But you have read into it what you want, rather than what is written. Let me clarify what I said for you: as one who use to be enslaved to alcohol, I can at this time assure the one still enslaved that there is hope. He/she can be rid of this enslavement. But they will not understand that fully until they are in fact...rid of it.

Understand? (and that is called being facetious...not passive agression).

The context of the conversation: until one has experienced faith, they cannot understand what it means to have faith.

Understand?

Whether you agree or not is a different matter altogether, but unless you want to tell me that a person is not entitled to their own beliefs, whether it is atheistic or Christian, then I suggest that you...lighten up a little.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Atheism is not alcoholism.

No-one said it was. I know nothing would give you more satisfaction than for me to mock or ridicule atheists, so that you can say, "See, see how intolerant "believers are!" Perhaps, instead of trying to find a "gotcha!" you should instead examine your own attitude toward those of faith.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Religion is a perfect example of being intoxicated uncontrollably by a poisonous substance.

I would suggest you look at the deeds of religionists, and then look at the actions of atheism, and then tell me how atheistm are so very different. And keep in mind, I am not lumping all atheists together, because I have met nominal atheists, even as I have met nominal believers. They believe what they believe, and do not get involved in an offensive against "the other side." But some wish to proselytize, to ridicule, to be openly aggressive toward the other side.

Where do you fit into that, Defacto?



(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Atheism or any form of reason that approaches free human thought can be the process of being free of the hallucinating effects of an addiction.


So can chewing gum and straws, but I have yet to see a "chewing forum."

Is implying that those who have faith as commanded by scripture itself have "no reason," or are illogical...passive aggression? I would view it as open, myself, but hey, never claimed to be smart.

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  As far as the "your shoes, my shoes" statement, I find that belittling and a perfect example of how you reduce thinking people to a form that suits your need to prove your false position by manipulation.

So I am manipulating people now? It is actually an old Indian proverb: do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.

I stand on the statement: those who are still bound by alcoholism will not understand the possibility that they can be free of it...until they are free of it.

You disagree with that?

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I will continue to hammer at the idea that you think you and your biblical beliefs allow you to put non-believers into an, "I am better than you,

Again, a baseless charge. Probably rooted in the fact that you will interpret my posts, not according to what I say, but what you want it them to say.

Show me where I have elevated myself above atheists, I am willing to look at it.

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  more blessed than you,

For your information, I happen to believe that God blesses all people. The concept of "why do the wicked prosper while believers suffer" is an age old question, paralleled in the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Will you admit that this statement is itself based on assumption? Probably not.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  more enlightened by god


Now this I do believe: scripture teaches that the natural man cannot understand the things of God, and that the Gospel is "foolishness unto them."

It is just a biblical doctrine, one that is foundational to bible study.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  and more chosen than you" position based on attitude


Based on attitude? That in itself does not even make sense. The cart before the horse...don't you think?

Just so you know, the "People of God" are better described as "created," not chosen.

It is secular society that chooses.

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  basted in a saucy covering of controlled peace and tranquility.

Done yet? lol

Do you feel better?




(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I don't mince words ST.


I would have never noticed (facetious...or passive agressive?).

Just so you know, I do have peace. I did not always have this peace, and it helps in life's storms, which will surely come.

(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I also don't start and finish most conversations with, "gee, I haven't really had time to think about this or time to read or answer you, I'm just so busy and this is too beneath me..." kind of statement.

Please quote me where I have elevated myself and given the impression you paint above of me.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Why do you think you need to do that?


It is true that sometimes I just do not have the time to properly respond, and I will mentyion this sometimes. What is the big deal?


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  You do this all the time.


Do I? Thanks for pointing this out. Please show me where.


(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  I'm talking about you not kim.

This is curious. Why would she think you were talking about her?

Of course, as I pointed out that she had made assumptions about my beliefs based on just a few posts, perhaps you also worry about this?

*EDIT* Okay, I see why this statement was made:

"Good afternoon all.
Hi S.T. - Again, sorry for the quick skim but a couple of niggling things caught my eye...
(oops ahead of time for any typos, misspellings, and nutshells here, I'm rushed as usual)"


...this makes it even more curious, as well as shows a double standard.



(08-10-2011 06:10 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Whether it's true or not it might be enlightening to ask yourself why it is necessary to tell us this.

Whether what is true or not? That I am short on time? That I am better than you?

Really, Defacto, if you want to villify me, okay. But if you are going to make accusations or bring charges against me, at least have the decency to quote the source of the charge. I have said before, I am not above making mistakes, nor above reproach, and I always appreciate it when someone calls me on an error or when I have made statements that are less than kind.

Feel free to do so, just back it up with direct quotes.

And now (yawwn), I really need to get going, as I have much more important things to do today...

...just a little bit of humor there (very little).

S.T.
(09-10-2011 01:30 PM)kim Wrote:  As for "offensive" ... I saw the signature quote on a teeshirt and thought it funny and appropriate to a FREE thinking website. It was either that or a favorite quote: "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholics school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." But I thought it a little long for a signature.
Ah, the frustrations, hmm S. T....
I'm convinced more than ever that humor will be the only thing left to bear witness to a polarized society.

Being one that feels that I actually have a sense of humor (and this is a highly debatale subject), I do think that a sense of humor has its place, and that there is a line we should be careful not to cross.

As far as this being a "free thinking website," I agree for the most part, it is. However, there are those who are oppsed to free thinking, I believe, and would like to shut down an opposing viewpoint. It is the same on all forums, I believe. Kind of sad, really.

Sorry to hear about your frustrations, perhaps some old M*A*S*H episodes are in order?

Have a good one,

S.T.
(10-10-2011 05:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-10-2011 01:30 PM)kim Wrote:  As for "offensive" ... I saw the signature quote on a teeshirt and thought it funny and appropriate to a FREE thinking website. It was either that or a favorite quote: "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholics school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." But I thought it a little long for a signature.
Ah, the frustrations, hmm S. T....
I'm convinced more than ever that humor will be the only thing left to bear witness to a polarized society.

Just imagine, for a minute, that Jesus is up in heaven looking down at Christians. As he had been cruelly tortured and killed on a cross, he must be pretty pissed off at all the people reminding him of the fact by displaying crucifixes everywhere.

Scripture is clear as to what His anger is directed at. It is not at those who have been made mediators of the New Covenant.

And by the way, glad to see your participation.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 10:30 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(10-10-2011 07:13 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  S.T.

S.T - There is not the slightest need for me to elaborate, explain, document or recapitulate what I have already stated and I will not. I have no desire or need to get in your circular arguments that have been adequately explained to you over and over ad nauseam. You have successfully made my point for me in your last post. Q.E.D. I will leave it to others to judge for themselves if you have represented yourself logically or not. Defense of my point is not necessary. You have not been able to answer the questions posed adequately so I will leave them to be rhetorical.

Quote: defacto7 Wrote:
I don't say that as a gotcha, I really mean it.
S.T. Wrote:
You think you..."got me?" This is interesting. Okay, that's great, please elaborate. I hope this post itself is not the "smoking gun."

Say What? What is my "that" ST?

The context may not be clear to you, ST, but my 13 year old just asked me why you turned that [statement]around. Let me explain... you are writing like someone who is passive agressive... and I mean it. (I beleive this to be true). I am not saying you are passive agressive as a means to say, "I got you" as an extention of an argument. I will admit there could be ambiguity in the phrasing but the context was pretty clear; I beleive you were just fishing for something to divert the conversation... and hey... You did. Congratulations.

I never expected you to be able to properly defend your position so I will say that my indignation (and I am allowed) to be justified and that my statements to you are honorable. Let's just say I am fighting back at your inconsistency and constant abuse of logic and language... period. There is no discussion.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes defacto7's post
10-10-2011, 03:22 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Regarding the original post...
If this was a Baptist site these are literialists.
Drinking the coolade is an understatement.
Their view is so compacted into "faith" that there is literally nothing you could ever say reasonable.
..and never forget this. If they were to ever gain absolute political power they would have no problem turning their words into actions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
10-10-2011, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2011 05:20 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Was banned for asking...
(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  S.T - There is not the slightest need for me to elaborate, explain, document or recapitulate what I have already stated and I will not.

Hello Defacto, once again I am slightly puzzled at your response, yet, only slightly. You keep charging me with things such as passive agression, and not answering something. I again extend the request that you quote exactly what is is that I have said that causes you to feel this way.

It is not enough just to make accusations, which, as I have said before, I feel are baseless and stem from your dislike of my beliefs, rather than having a realistic basis. I have said again and again, if I have been rude, or said something offensive, please show me. If I feel you are at least justified in reading something that I may have worded in a way as to be offensive, I will apologize, without hestitation.

But, understand, because someone dislikes me due to their bias, rather than a reason that might be valid, such as poor argument, you name it...doesn't mean that attacks are justified. And until you present a reasonable basis for the way you have been venting, I will consider it unreasonable, and while a certain part of is willing to respond to posts such as these, it really is a pity to have to spend time with this sort of thing.

As it looks to me, what you are really saying is that you feel you can make accusations and because I am the minority here, you can do so without explanation. So be it.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I have no desire or need to get in your circular arguments that have been adequately explained to you over and over ad nauseam.

If you could at least present one...

How am I supposed to respond to the accusation that I have had something "explained to me" over and over, when I have not the first clue as to the subject matter. Perhaps you feel that it "has been explained to me" well enough that I have no factual basis for faith in God and His word.

You accuse me of "assuming," and then fail to give pertinent details as to what it is I am assuming.

If pointing out something that is contrary to my beliefs and actions, such as the content of the post you felt you needed to step in and speak your mind about, if that is passive agression, so be it. Call it what you like. I guess you feel that not everyone should have the right to defend themselves, is that it?

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  You have successfully made my point for me in your last post.

Glad I could do something right...lol.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Q.E.D. I will leave it to others to judge for themselves if you have represented yourself logically or not.

Excellent idea.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Defense of my point is not necessary.


What point? You do not even come close to actually raising a point, other than to call me names.


(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  You have not been able to answer the questions posed adequately so I will leave them to be rhetorical.

Here are the questions from the last post:

"What was lost, ST?"

This I explained in the post this reply responds to. Feel free to go back and examine it, then examine the source for the original question, and then consider if you might not have taken this out of context.

Next we have: "Who lost, ST?"

The question, because it has absolutlely nothing to do with what I said, but everything to do with your perception of what was said...really cannot be answered. It can (and was) only be answered in the context of the original statement, but dealt with the irony of the circumstances. If you care to reply to that specifically, great.

At this point, the tirade is then engaged, calling my faith forced assumption, the implications vast in that, then the direct insult that my faith or perhaps my conclusions are arrogant and illogical. Both of which I see as nothing but baseless attack. This might work well with most you speak to, but if you are going to engage in namecalling and insults, do not be surprised if I press you to back up your statments.

Next we have:

"Quit what?"

This question is based upon an erronous interpretation of what I said, trying to imply that I compared atheism to alcoholism and that I was saying atheists should quit. Both of which are untrue, the public resord will show that. As a matter of fact, I have stated that there are people who are atheists that I can fully understand why they are atheists.

They actually have a valid reason.

You make the statement, "Atheism is not alcoholism," which verifes the spin you are putting on my words. I never said that, never even hinted at it. I was speaking about the experiential aspect of alcoholism, the difference between one still enslaved, and the one freed from it's bondage. I am sure if you look at it, you might actually see that, though I doubt it.

The last question is:

"Why do you think you need to do that?"

This is funny, really (there I go with that passive agression again). You charge me with being diminutive because I have made a statement that "I have not a lot of time" or something of the sort. Your exact words are:

"I also don't start and finish most conversations with, "gee, I haven't really had time to think about this or time to read or answer you, I'm just so busy and this is too beneath me..." kind of statement."

What is funny, is that is how the post I responded to started. I guess what is acceptable to you is dependant on whether one is in agreement with your particular beliefs. As I said in the last post, this is a double standard that evidences bias as well as hypocrisy. Is that passive aggressive, Defacto, to plainly state something so obviously true?

I gave you the opportunity to produce where I have vaunted myself while diminutizing...anybody. What do I get? More of the same treatment. Okay, opportunity withdrawn, I no longer want you to present a reasonable, logical foundation for the apparent dislike you have for me. (and I promise, I am not, I repeat, NOT, using reverse psychology here...lol).


Okay, just to end up this little portion of response, there you have it. In all of the response to me we have four questions, all of which were answered.

Now...who is being rhetorical here?



(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  
Quote: defacto7 Wrote:
I don't say that as a gotcha, I really mean it.
S.T. Wrote:
You think you..."got me?" This is interesting. Okay, that's great, please elaborate. I hope this post itself is not the "smoking gun."

Say What? What is my "that" ST?

First, I am not sure what you refer to here by "that."

Secondly, are you denying that you did not present this exactly as I responded to it?

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  The context may not be clear to you, ST, but my 13 year old just asked me why you turned that [statement]around.

I can hardly see how I turned it around. You make a statement such as:


"Your smugness verges on passive aggressive."

"I don't say that as a gotcha, I really mean it."

That is what was said. You state that my "smugness verges on passive agression." Okay, because Defacto states that he/she really means this...it must be true.

As far as context goes, that was lost before you even responded. Since you cannot be bothered to get caught up in a circular argument, I guess this will go unanswered as well. Show me where my responses turned the statement around, how I was smug, how I was arrogant, or how your opinion of me has any bearing on first the original tirade as well as the context of the conversation.


(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Let me explain... you are writing like someone who is passive agressive... and I mean it.

(I beleive this to be true).


I guess you are not used to people, especially Christians, not being bullied. Its okay, really, I am used to it.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I am not saying you are passive agressive as a means to say, "I got you" as an extention of an argument.

No, you are saying that is far more ridiculous: you are saying (and said specifically) that passive agression is "part" of the outcome of biblical faith.

Guess what, this sounds sillier to me than personal attacks, because at least some of the time the personal attacks might have justification.

There is no need to explain what you mean by "I got you," because honestly, I am not bothered by baseless accusations and obscure, unfounded ridicule of not only my faith, but the faith of millions. God does not need me to defend Him. Christianity has done fine before I as born and will continue until the Lord comes back. If it were not so sad, it would almost be humorous.

But perhaps you would refrain from statments such as these if you actually knew what it was that scripture actually teaches as the outcome of obedience to God. Perhaps even, if you actually knew someone that was a Christian, and had more experience dealing with those who seek to live biblically, which includes the command to live peacably with all men to the best of our abilities, you might reconsider making such statements.


(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I will admit there could be ambiguity in the phrasing but the context was pretty clear;

It aws very clear, and was responded to accordingly.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I beleive you were just fishing for something to divert the conversation... and hey... You did. Congratulations.

There has been no diversion on my part. However, if you would like to show me how I diverted, I would be curious to see that.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I never expected you to be able to properly defend your position

Actually, all that was necessary was for me to defend myself, seeing that nearly the entire post was an attack. But I need not defend myself, this post, the previous post, or the response post which you apparently took offense to.

If you feel there is a particular position that I needed to defend, please point that out. I cannot see that anything has not been responded to in your posts.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  so I will say that my indignation (and I am allowed) to be justified and that my statements to you are honorable.

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? So here is mine: your posts were nothing more than attacks, replete with baseless accusations, and devoid of reasonable debate or discussion. I guess you felt that you really put me in my place, right? All it takes is to vent on someone and they will run for cover? I will tell you this, you may think this circular argument but I will definitely keep at it until you are absolutely forced to look at your own presentation.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, what "I really believe" about the recent posts you have made is that you simply have a hatred for me because I am a Christian, and it really doesn't matter what I say, you will perceive it as smug, arrogant, passive aggressive, and a list of other things.

I challenge you or anybody else to point out where I have been what you have charged me with.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Let's just say I am fighting back at your inconsistency and constant abuse of logic and language... period.

What is there to "fight back" about? I am the minority here, remember? I have to "walk on eggshells", not you. You can ay whatever you like. I have been extremely careful as not to offend, because I do not wish to be banned for something stupid. If I am banned, it will not be because I "argued" with someone that has it in for me. At least, that is my hope.

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  There is no discussion.

That is the problem. You charge me with rhetoric, but an examination of my posting as well as the content will show that I try not to make statements that are not valid questions. I am not here so you can hear what I have to say, I am here to learn more about the basis of individual atheists and why some of them have such hatred in their hearts to the point that they will freely ridicule others.

Look, I am firm in my belief that all people have a right to believe as they choose, and to freely make known what they believe to others. However, I do not see that sentiment exampled by all here, and to be fair, I do not see it on some Christian forums. That is a problem. If there is a reason that this or any other forum would wish to limit who and what is spoken about, then it should be clearly outlined in forum rules. At least one moderator here has been very gracious in their welcome of me, and in return, I will show that moderator the same consideration and try not to be a problem. Or to "stir things up."

But don't expect me to sit idly by while you or anyone else brings charges against me, especially if I feel they are both unfair and untrue. If you want to have a discussion, fine. If you want to debate, fine. But if you want to attack because you don't like me, that is okay too. I will respond. I will try to be as nice as I can, but understand that sometimes you are not going to like it if I point out things such as these. I do not actually enjoy responding to posts like this, but there is just enough of the old nature and Irish in me to do so.

The choice is yours.

S.T.

(10-10-2011 03:22 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Regarding the original post...
If this was a Baptist site these are literialists.
Drinking the coolade is an understatement.
Their view is so compacted into "faith" that there is literally nothing you could ever say reasonable.
..and never forget this. If they were to ever gain absolute political power they would have no problem turning their words into actions.
Hello Thomas,

Some interesting comments. Are you aware of Baptists that seek absolute political power? This is the first I have heard of this.

And perhaps you could expand on what you mean by literalists, and what your knowledge of Baptists are, I would be very curious to know.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: