Guest kcdad Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. It's a picture. Most apologists accept trinity doctrine. You are an apologist...you just don't happen to believe trinity doctrine. We can't have a different little mini-picture for every possible stripe of apologist. Our Forums would then require a legend key, and that would get ludicrous. We get new members all the time...some of them raw and bleeding from the shock of deconversion. Last thing they need is an apologist in "sheep's clothing" (general Ex-C designation) questioning their choices before they've even found their feet. New members can see the "Apologist" designation, and they can then make an informed choice as to whether or not to enter a hairy debate with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. It's a picture. Most apologists accept trinity doctrine. You are an apologist...you just don't happen to believe trinity doctrine. We can't have a different little mini-picture for every possible stripe of apologist. Our Forums would then require a legend key, and that would get ludicrous. We get new members all the time...some of them raw and bleeding from the shock of deconversion. Last thing they need is an apologist in "sheep's clothing" (general Ex-C designation) questioning their choices before they've even found their feet. New members can see the "Apologist" designation, and they can then make an informed choice as to whether or not to enter a hairy debate with you. I encourage all Christians to leave behind the teachings of the church. I don't think there is but a flicker of light in any truth they are selling. I really don't understand what you mean by I "just don't happen to believe" trinity doctrine. You think I just tripped over that disbelief? So it means I am a Christian Apologist, eh? You ex-christians are not very different from the yet-christians... you both have to label people and try and put them in boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I encourage all Christians to leave behind the teachings of the church. I don't think there is but a flicker of light in any truth they are selling. But you "sell" your own rehashed version of belief kcdad. I've seen you repeatedly tell ex-Cers on here that their perspectives are "wrong". Based on what? You then use a refried refurbished version of something biblically based to tell someone else they are wrong. You are selling some form of belief, it just doesn't have a clearly defined christian label (though it does seem biblically based). I really don't understand what you mean by I "just don't happen to believe" trinity doctrine. You think I just tripped over that disbelief? You are an Apologist. You may not believe in the trinity...but you are an Apologist with some very pro-jesus, pro-bible leanings. So it means I am a Christian Apologist, eh? You ex-christians are not very different from the yet-christians... you both have to label people and try and put them in boxes. Again....not paying very close attention there kcdad. You are an APOLOGIST yes. You believe your belief system to be sufficiently "correct" as to tell everyone else here their beliefs are wrong. This is not the kind of sensitivity new Ex-Cers need, as I clearly defined earlier. The raw and the sensitive need to know that you intend to challenge anything anyone says (your own response to mine is proof enough of that). People who come here to do that, to challenge people in recovery (especially as you've been fiddling about in the NON debate forums lately) should be tagged in a manner that is clearly apparent to those whom they challenge. You enjoy that broad brush generalization there kcdad. I already decided before I responded to this thread, that you don't get to push my buttons. You've been clearly labelled for the emotional protection of other people. You earned the label. You still have opportunity to prove the label wrong. What you do with that opportunity depends on how you choose to conduct yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 If the boot fits. Which particular mythology you're pandering to doesn't matter. Your behavior on the forums is clearly indicative of apologist tactics and mindset. You may not be a conventional Christian apologist, but that doesn't change the fact you're acting like an apologist. :edited for unnecessary roughness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Again....not paying very close attention there kcdad. You are an APOLOGIST yes. You believe your belief system to be sufficiently "correct" as to tell everyone else here their beliefs are wrong. This is not the kind of sensitivity new Ex-Cers need, as I clearly defined earlier. The raw and the sensitive need to know that you intend to challenge anything anyone says (your own response to mine is proof enough of that). People who come here to do that, to challenge people in recovery (especially as you've been fiddling about in the NON debate forums lately) should be tagged in a manner that is clearly apparent to those whom they challenge. I'm going to have to say something here. Everything you just said happens from ExC's to new ExC's all the time. Why do you think the ExChristian Theism and Spirituality forum was created? It was because of strong-minded rationalists arguing their doctrines apologetically, doing precisely what you say above, "believe your belief system to be sufficiently "correct" as to tell everyone else here their beliefs are wrong." It was precisely because of that. Should we give an apologist label to everyone who brings their apologist behaviors with them as they leave Christianity? Are we to expect everyone to conform to a new set of doctrines that are specifically anti-religion and mock and ridicule all those who don't see things like us? Are we the approvers of correct doctrine??? Not for me. kcdad is rejecting traditional Christianity. So have we. But are we now to become the approvers of acceptable doctrines within ExChristianity; no astral projecting; no deities; no re-imaginging the Jesus figure, etc? Isn't he ExChristian, by virtue of rejecting Christianity? I have heard him state this directly. He is not a Christian. Where does this problem actually lay? You've been clearly labelled for the emotional protection of other people. You earned the label. You still have opportunity to prove the label wrong. What you do with that opportunity depends on how you choose to conduct yourself. Personally, I despise any labels. For myself, and towards everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 3, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 3, 2009 If the boot fits. Which particular mythology you're pandering to doesn't matter. Your behavior on the forums is clearly indicative of apologist tactics and mindset. You may not be a conventional Christian apologist, but that doesn't change the fact you're acting like an apologist. :edited for unnecessary roughness Bless you, Mr. Smoke. Apologies to AM, but that was an accurate assessment in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Bless you, Mr. Smoke. Apologies to AM, but that was an accurate assessment in my opinion. Accurate is not how I evaluate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Bless you, Mr. Smoke. Apologies to AM, but that was an accurate assessment in my opinion. Thanks for the vote of support, but as AM pointed out to me, I've overstepped my bounds by huffing and puffing in his forum. I think it's fairly obvious I don't much like kcdad, but whether he's crossed the line isn't my call to make here. My post and the quote have been edited for necessary roughness, and it's probably best if I bow out of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shantonu Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Bless you, Mr. Smoke. Apologies to AM, but that was an accurate assessment in my opinion. Accurate is not how I evaluate it. I didn't realize that someone selected the icons beneath the avatiar. I don't have an avatar. That's actually a picture of me next to a statute of the Buddha from Peshawar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm going to have to say something here. Everything you just said happens from ExC's to new ExC's all the time. Why do you think the ExChristian Theism and Spirituality forum was created? It was because of strong-minded rationalists arguing their doctrines apologetically, doing precisely what you say above, "believe your belief system to be sufficiently "correct" as to tell everyone else here their beliefs are wrong." It was precisely because of that. YES....But you nailed it Antlerman. Theism and Spirituality Forum was specifically designed for the betwixt and betweens. And as a credit to it's creation, I'm pleased to see that whatever goes on in the Theism Forum, seems to STAY in the Theism forum. Discussions can still occur amonst those who have some form of post-belief without turning every damn discussion EVERYWHERE on the site into a quasi-theistic debate. Okay. Kcdad say's he's not a christian. If I say: "I'm not going to make pizza." but then I buy a circular crust, spread pepperoni, sauce, olives, onion, and cheese on it then stick it in the oven.... I'm willing to bet you are NOT going to trust my earlier declaration that I wasn't going to make pizza. Such as it is with kcdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks for the vote of support, but as AM pointed out to me, I've overstepped my bounds by huffing and puffing in his forum. I think it's fairly obvious I don't much like kcdad, but whether he's crossed the line isn't my call to make here. My post and the quote have been edited for necessary roughness, and it's probably best if I bow out of the discussion. Since when does "Led by" = This moderator and only this moderator PWNS this whole FORUM??? If that's what we've come to, maybe it's time I moved on myself. I don't like the idea of any ONE Mod having absolute authority in a particular forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Since when does "Led by" = This moderator and only this moderator PWNS this whole FORUM??? If that's what we've come to, maybe it's time I moved on myself. I don't like the idea of any ONE Mod having absolute authority in a particular forum. He overstated that. I'm the primary, which means I'm pinged to deal with something primarily, not solely. But in this case I was already dealing with it, and having two mods talking different directions.... well... Of course I won't please everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 He overstated that. I'm the primary, which means I'm pinged to deal with something primarily, not solely. But in this case I was already dealing with it, and having two mods talking different directions.... well... *whew* Thank goodness. When that Led by stuff appeared, I pretty much figured it meant that forum was that Mod's primary responsibility to keep up with content. Just about froze the blood in my veins there! Of course I won't please everyone. You don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Er, right. What Keith said. One of these days I'll get the hang of this whole "mod" thing. Hopefully. Anyway, with the bowing out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I am the walrus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Koo Koo Ka Choo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 LR, How fitting is the avatar...."Kill the Wabbit! Kill the Waaabbit" ...too funny man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Should we give an apologist label to everyone who brings their apologist behaviors with them as they leave Christianity? Where is this coming from AM? The guy clearly has a boner for Jesus. It may not be a traditional boner, but he clearly knows the truth and knows that we don't have it. Why over complicate the uncomplicated? As for members who are fundamentalist in their behavior about atheism or whatever, they are few and far between and generally don't stick around for long periods of time. You are making this statement as if it represents the bulk of us. I know you are sensitive to overzealous atheists so I understand that they draw your attention probably more so than to those of us who are ambivalent on the matter. Likewise many of us, me included, are probably sensitive to loud apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. We didn't have a pompous windbag label handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I guess the time finally came. When did the switch happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Bless you, Mr. Smoke. Apologies to AM, but that was an accurate assessment in my opinion. Thanks for the vote of support, but as AM pointed out to me, I've overstepped my bounds by huffing and puffing in his forum. I think it's fairly obvious I don't much like kcdad, but whether he's crossed the line isn't my call to make here. My post and the quote have been edited for necessary roughness, and it's probably best if I bow out of the discussion. We can call it an unintentional facemask and only penalize you 5 yards... don't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. But do you accept Jesus and defend the Bible? And do you call yourself a Christian? It seems like your message is a bit blurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 So what is the meaning of that kite and tail that is supposed to indicate me as a Christian...? Is it supposed to represent the trinity? I don't accept the trinity doctrine. But do you accept Jesus and defend the Bible? And do you call yourself a Christian? It seems like your message is a bit blurry. I have no idea what "accept Jesus" means. I have never heard anyone explain it in any way that made sense. So, no, I do not Accept Jesus. Do I defend the Bible? Against what? Irrational fears and anthropomorphizing? Yes. Against critical thinking, NO. I don't call myself anything except a human being who has Marxist leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yet another xian with yet another version of the TRUTHTM. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts