Was banned for asking...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2011, 07:04 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(10-10-2011 05:16 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  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.

S.T. Thanks. I don't really know if there are people who can understand what I am about to say, but... You have just gained a huge amount of respect from me. It's about time you started spitting nails. You did. I think I can start listening seriously to you now.

I would like to pose a question to you but not in this thread. I hope you can answer it with the understanding that now it may be time to get to the point and put ourselves, your beliefs and my lack of them to a test. I have no reason to believe we will ever change our minds, but hopefully we will learn something or at least define something. Both of us. And if you are able to change my mind that would be the chance.

Peace,

defacto7

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 04:42 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(10-10-2011 07:04 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(10-10-2011 05:16 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  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.

S.T. Thanks. I don't really know if there are people who can understand what I am about to say, but... You have just gained a huge amount of respect from me. It's about time you started spitting nails. You did. I think I can start listening seriously to you now.

I would like to pose a question to you but not in this thread. I hope you can answer it with the understanding that now it may be time to get to the point and put ourselves, your beliefs and my lack of them to a test. I have no reason to believe we will ever change our minds, but hopefully we will learn something or at least define something. Both of us. And if you are able to change my mind that would be the chance.

Peace,

defacto7

Good morning Defacto, first I just want to say thanks for the challenge, as it made me aware that I have messages that I have not noticed. I am always happy to answer any question, and my motivation, as I have made clear in the past, is not completely unselfish: I do try to gain better understanding of both God and scripture, and talking with people usually helps because it both helps me learn to actually talk to people, as well as gives perspective at times that I have not previously considered.

But, what I have also maintained since I have been here is this: I am not trying to change minds. If I could change your mind about something, your mind can just as easily "changed back." I cannot "save" anyone, and do not try to give the impression that I can, but contrarywise, make it clear that salvation is wholly the work of God within the individual.

You see, I am sincere in that I am here to converse. I can have sympathy for any person, despite their beliefs (or their unbelief). Just because we have opposing beliefs does not change the fact that we are both members of this world, and share a common ground that separates us from the rest of creation: our humanity.

I had to laugh about "spitting nails," though. I will go back and read the post to see if this is how I came across, though reading the posts will be a little like hearing your own voice on a recording...it just never sounds like you. I will say that scripture has not led me to the conclusion that anger is always wrong, though I assure you, no animosity was involved in the response.

I will look at the message and answer best as I can, but again, I am not trying to change your mind...I just cannot do that. But I can, as others have done for me, give consideration to the thought that I might be looking at something the wrong way, or at least, just give someone something to think about.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 07:20 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Christian forums are idiotic people there do not listen to reason,logic or anything as such.Wasting your time on writing long and logical threads is as pointless as extinguishing the last spark of a burnt down building.Sadly enough this occurs in real life as well and the so called ''arguments'' that they reply with are ''god is real because god said that he is real in an illogical book of fantasy''and making any further arguments from there is risk of becoming as intelligent as them.

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
-Karl Marx


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like znk666's post
12-10-2011, 10:59 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
OH!- I was amiss not giving the "...little electric chairs..." it's proper due; the quote is a classic of the late, great Lenny Bruce. A free thinker and very necessary individual.

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

How very condescendingly flippant, although I do not understand what "old MASH episodes" have to do with anything… at all. So, I'll ignore this superficiality… for the moment...
In the very brief post you pulled the word from, "frustrations" referred to the frustrations of a polarized society and gave an example attached with a cartoon displaying that frustration which many atheists and christians encounter interacting with each other. It was a brief comment to illustrate the continued back to front perceptions encountered by those of simply opposite views. I felt the brevity of the post would help one to keep the train of thought contained, but it seems that even the cartoon used to further illustrate, may not even have been viewed. Too bad, thought it was cute and spot on.

Idea Interactive conversation acutely depends on following a train of thought.

So, it appears you really think that by just saying the word "frustrations" I must be saying that "I" am frustrated? That would be an assumption. One's ability to perceive this is a base tenant of interaction. This would be perceived as one of those personal attacks to which defacto7 referred; meant to belittle; make light of; and possibly even categorize another (for whatever reason). Defacto7 stated you have done this in past postings and since I am very new to this forum, I would defer to his understanding of your posting history.
Sadly S.T., from but a few, quick interactions and observation of other posts, my impression of any of your views are overshadowed by your inability to follow the point someone tries to make, and your misunderstanding of simple interaction. The very precepts of which are what any forum is about and indeed, how debate and conversation is conducted.

Idea I'll leave this with you S.T.; wish you well; and hope you might take heed to at least, follow another's train of thought in further discussions… it might even help you with following your own.

Heart
Thank you Defacto7 for alerting us to S. T.'s previous post activity … but of course he, himself has been instrumental in his sad exposure. Watching a mind continually catching itself in a mobius strip, is something I'm learning to just walk away from and view as a useless, even tiring, negative experience… in short; an unnecessary bore. Undecided

A lovely day awaits. Big Grin

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
12-10-2011, 11:16 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
I saw your cartoon. I thought it was cute and spot on! Big Grin

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
12-10-2011, 11:21 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
kim, you have hit the nail on the head.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.

- Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaika's post
13-10-2011, 08:39 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  OH!- I was amiss not giving the "...little electric chairs..." it's proper due; the quote is a classic of the late, great Lenny Bruce. A free thinker and very necessary individual.

Hello Kim, thanks for the response. Sorry to sound passive agressive, and to appear that I do not actually follow a conversation, which, by your own admission is a conclusion to accepting what someone else has said, rather than an understanding you have come to based on the facts involved. Which would be the public record which you are free to examine.

But I wonder if this would be done in an unbiased manner.

I will give you, though, the same challenge that was extended in the last response: the charges made against me can be examined, the posts are there, will you at this time put the effort into backing up the accusations you bring against me?


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  So, S.T....
Quote:Sorry to hear about your frustrations, perhaps some old M*A*S*H episodes are in order?

How very condescendingly flippant, although I do not understand what "old MASH episodes" have to do with anything… at all. So, I'll ignore this superficiality… for the moment...


Okay, so if I use humor, it is "passive agression," and condescension? Flippant? Superficial?

What...a Christian cannot have a sense of humor? I guess it does not speak well of my humor...that it has to be pointed out.

I was actually being facetious: I knew this was not an admission of being frustrated on your part.

(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  In the very brief post you pulled the word from, "frustrations" referred to the frustrations of a polarized society and gave an example attached with a cartoon displaying that frustration which many atheists and christians encounter interacting with each other. It was a brief comment to illustrate the continued back to front perceptions encountered by those of simply opposite views. I felt the brevity of the post would help one to keep the train of thought contained, but it seems that even the cartoon used to further illustrate, may not even have been viewed. Too bad, thought it was cute and spot on.

Actually, if we "follow the conversation," it was a defense of ridiculing the faith of many people.

And it was a poor defense, in my opinion.

Would it be okay for me to ridicule atheists, and then say, "Well, I just thought it was cute, and spot on."

There is no excuse, in my opinion, of purposefully mocking people, though I can understand that at the heart of it is a need to stand with your fellow atheists, and hey, wht better way to make friends than to ridicule others that those we wish to align ourselves with hate?

We see this in human nature from a very early age. But, there has to be a time when we learn that we are not free to trample the feelings of others. I would not justify this behavior in those who call themselves Christians, as I would not justify it in anyone.

Perhaps that comes from having a brother that was mentally impaired due to a fall when a baby. My older brother and I would on occasion have to defend him from people that had mentalities that saw nothing wrong with ridiculing others because they were "different."

But hey, we all have to decide who we are, right?

(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Idea Interactive conversation acutely depends on following a train of thought.

So, it appears you really think that by just saying the word "frustrations" I must be saying that "I" am frustrated? That would be an assumption.

No, it would be a poor sense of humor, apparently.

But the more I think about it, perhaps some MASH episodes might be in order, after all.

Now, as I look at the content of this response, it amazes me at how the responses have actually very little to do with what I have actually said. Sorry if I have put you on the defensive, but really, I was simply responding to what you had said. The responses thus far have been primarily a defense of yourself. And it would seem that your opinion of me is still arrived at by taking for granted that what someone else has said about me...is true. You affirm this even in this post.

When you are interested in actually having an interactive conversation, let me know.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  One's ability to perceive this is a base tenant of interaction.

Well, the charge that my interpretations of that which is said to me is a common one, so, I challenge you to give example of this.

I will be glad to dissect the posts that deal with frustration and MASH episodes, if you like, but I will also include everything that you have thus far said.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  This would be perceived as one of those personal attacks to which defacto7 referred; meant to belittle; make light of; and possibly even categorize another (for whatever reason).


I have asked Defacto to post examples of my "attacks." Thus far, none are forthcoming.

I do not seek to belittle people, but you must understand, when we say something untrue or are confronted with examining the content of our hearts, anger is going to be a natural response. Be careful, because anger can blur our perceptions of what we say and do.

I am also susceptiple to this, and I gladly welcome someone pointing out where I have been offensive or out of line. I do not believe myself to be above reproach.

However, please show me where I have done this rather than just making blanket statements, and then openly declare that these are based on what someone else has said.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Defacto7 stated you have done this in past postings and since I am very new to this forum, I would defer to his understanding of your posting history.

Again, show me. Look through my postings, and in an unbiased manner examine the conversations, and if you can, be honest about the conversations.

My assumption is that you have read my conversations with Andrew, which is a little out of the norm for me. I do not usually get involved with discussions about the earth's age, or technical conversations that have to do with fossil records.

These conversations are not the only ones that need to be considered in order to understand who I am or what I believe.

What you say here is, "I am willing to believe the testimony of someone else concerning a person, and am not willing to look beyond that."

If you would like to back up and go over the discussions we have already had, I am willing. However, it appears that the verdict has been rendered, so I doubt that this will happen.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Sadly S.T., from but a few, quick interactions and observation of other posts, my impression of any of your views are overshadowed by your inability to follow the point someone tries to make,

And sadly, Kim, it is obvious to any honest reader of your responses that you base your conclusions upon...nothing.

Can you, honestly, state what I believe? What my views are? No, I do not think so. You say I have an inability to follow a conversation, however, can you go back to your first response to me, track through the "few, quick interactions," and say in your heart that you have been an example of following and contributing to an interactive conversation?

What point have you made? How did you reasonably respond to the points I made?

(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  and your misunderstanding of simple interaction.

Again, a baseless charge which is openly admitted to be a conclusion derived by the testimony of another.

Good thing our legal system does not work like this.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  The very precepts of which are what any forum is about and indeed, how debate and conversation is conducted.

Well, while I agree that there is a certain procedure to follow when attempting to have a discussion or debate, can you honestly say that all here do that?

What I have witnessed runs more along the lines of "believe what I do you idiot!" And if I disagree with someone, of course it is me that is in the wrong, I am the one that "is not listening." I am the one who "attacks."

All I ask is that these charges be backed up with the evidence that is public, my posts themselves, rather than, "It is true because I (or someone else) says it is, and we are always right."

You want to have interactive conversation, so do I.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Idea I'll leave this with you S.T.; wish you well; and hope you might take heed to at least, follow another's train of thought in further discussions… it might even help you with following your own.

Well, thanks. I strive to understand others for who they are, not what someone else says they are.

I will heed this advice as best as I can.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Heart
Thank you Defacto7 for alerting us to S. T.'s previous post activity … but of course he, himself has been instrumental in his sad exposure.

Now go and examine the conversations for yourself. You might be surprised at what has been exposed.


(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  Watching a mind continually catching itself in a mobius strip, is something I'm learning to just walk away from and view as a useless, even tiring, negative experience… in short; an unnecessary bore. Undecided

How convenient.

(12-10-2011 10:59 AM)kim Wrote:  A lovely day awaits. Big Grin

That it does.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2011 09:59 AM by Jesus H Christ.)
RE: Was banned for asking...
This thread is too long to read. But i will say they should have never kicked you out. Jesus loves you!
(03-09-2011 05:56 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(03-09-2011 03:38 AM)Monk Wrote:  I was banned from the site, my thread deleted.

The telling piece of information isn't that you were banned -- they may have misunderstood something -- the telling piece if that your thread was deleted.

Falsifying reality, denying embarrassing contradictions, pretending that reason doesn't exist -- that is their hallmark.
Alf,

Christians should not falsify reality. Would you say every athiest is a perfect representative of of what you believe in?

(03-09-2011 04:17 PM)Sines Wrote:  Not terribly surprised. How many people on that forum tried to talk honestly and thoughtfully with you though? Unless it was a real fundie shit-hole, I'm sure there were some people there who tried to be nice and answer your questions, even if their answers were the same old apologist non-sense.

Oh, and ST, you're a christian right? How about you offer your explanations for the conundrums in place. Or do you agree with everything he proposed? In that case, if you agree that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, how should such contradictory passages be taken, and why are they in the bible?
Let him speak to you young grasshopper. If you close yourself up you will never understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: