Greetings!

[Joshpantera]

51 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

I never really studied the predestination theories.  Does his have a little different twist to it?  It always seemed crazy to me.  If you believe in a system like that, it's a guessing game as to whether you will be saved.  Sounds like a system to drive insecure people crazy.  Or am I missing something?

 

This whole exchange (at both sites) has been confusing, to be honest. And by both parties involved. They seem to wonder why in the world ex christians were invited. Maybe the motivations were discussed behind the scenes with the staff, I wouldn't doubt. 

 

I would think that there would be some underlying motivation geared at trying to win back souls. But there may not be. Not sure how that would fit into the theology presented. 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This whole exchange (at both sites) has been confusing, to be honest. And by both parties involved. They seem to wonder why in the world ex christians were invited. Maybe the motivations were discussed behind the scenes with the staff, 

 

 

How long has his site been in operation?  And is it actually his site?  I could see him inviting people, but not telling staff.  At least ahead of time.

[TruthSeeker0]

23 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

I think a lot of times new disciples are overly zealous. They haven't been or graduated from "discipleship" and set out in "Evangelism". Along the way they think, hey, the Holy Spirit will give some matrix style download of information immediately, and when my mouth is opened the Spirit speaks. Such people have no problem blaming the Holy Spirit for horrible interpretation.

 

No doubt the good news is to reach all tribes, tongues, and nations. But how has the Gospel message been twisted in legalism, in works righteousness or performance based salvation? If anyone has "tried" to display faith and failed, you'll probably by experience testify that faith cannot be faked. Faith alone does not save Christians. Faith in the object of faith, if defined as an act of the believer does not save either as that is a work of man. It is the object of faith (Jesus Christ) that saves. Faith is actually a gift and fruit of the Holy Spirit (regeneration). Without this regeneration and apart from God then faith is a work of man.

 

What is harmful? Serious question from a societal approach. Some say religion, and I think false religion is very harmful. But here's the rub, many of the testimonies here have evidenced that they haven't actually rejected Jesus Christ. They've rejected their personal or mental projection on God. They've rejected cults, false Christ, false Prophets, and false Teachers. Back on what is harmful, likewise, and I'm using this as an example, how has society come to terms with supporting a delusion where someone may pretend to be something else. I've seen one article on a man that is cosmetically transforming himself to a parrot. Another that has transformed herself into a living Barbie and had ribs removed to shape her. Let alone the T in the LGBT, should we support such a delusion which may result in physical castration or chemical castration on children?

 

Well certain states think so and current legislation is making its way up where it is illegal to speak out against it through various media. How badly does anyone want to destroy or abolish the teachings of Jesus Christ? Morality is not the prime objective of Christianity, but it may very well be a secondary benefit to a nation.

 

Open to anyone's thoughts and questions.

It's called live and let live. Have your xtianity and youre welcome to it, but don't try to mix it with state affairs and in doing so try to implement legislation that reflects your beliefs which you can then enforce on others. You are one out of millions of people and you don't have a right to dictate that government should reflect xtian values. It's called separation of church and state. I'll never understand what the fuck is wrong with these people who have the right to live how they want and go to church seven times a week three times a day and *still*, they are trying to dictate other people's lives. These people need to get over themselves. 

[Christforums]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

How long has his site been in operation?  And is it actually his site?  I could see him inviting people, but not telling staff.  At least ahead of time.

 

Let's not worry about my invitation as it has now expired.

 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

It's called live and let live. Have your xtianity and youre welcome to it, but don't try to mix it with state affairs and in doing so try to implement legislation that reflects your beliefs which you can then enforce on others. You are one out of millions of people and you don't have a right to dictate that government should reflect xtian values. It's called separation of church and state. I'll never understand what the fuck is wrong with these people who have the right to live how they want and go to church seven times a week three times a day and *still*, they are trying to dictate other people's lives. These people need to get over themselves. 

 

I can no longer "fake" on another site as though I do not see the comments, behavior, and treatment that I have received on this site. Why should I "pretend" to ignore the evidence? 

 

While the moderator "cleaned up" the threads it was nothing but dressing up people in the finest silk.

 

I received a PM from a member here today which said I should step back and soak in what has happened here. Likewise, that may be quite beneficial.

 

To Note, I just wanted people to know that while I received some resistance behind the scenes in PM I am sincerely praying and was hoping to engage others here.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I would think that there would be some underlying motivation geared at trying to win back souls. But there may not be. Not sure how that would fit into the theology presented. 

Nobody escapes the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all people, irrespective of theology.  Some hold it as a deeply personal responsibility; while others see it as more of a shared burden of the collective church/denomination/movement.  Some take it more seriously than others.

 

But at the heart of every theology (and in the back of every believer's mind), is the idea that "this belief is truth and right; and everyone needs to hear it and conform." 

 

William, himself, even tipped his own hand on this point.

 

"I'm using this as an example, how has society come to terms with supporting a delusion where someone may pretend to be something else. I've seen onearticle on a man that is cosmeticallytransforming himself to a parrot. Another that has transformed herself into a living Barbie and had ribs removed to shape her. Let alone the T in the LGBT, should we support such a delusion which may result in physical castration orchemical castration on children?

 

Well certain states think so and currentlegislation is making its way up where it is illegal to speak out against it through various media. How badly does anyone want to destroy orabolish the teachings of Jesus Christ? Morality is not the prime objective of Christianity, but it may very well be a secondary benefit to a nation."

 

If William truly believed that regeneration was the work of the holy spirit, why would he feel a need, or responsibility to try and influence the politics of a nation?

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

  10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

And are you referring to Alan Watts as a "false Christ," and "garbage?" 

If Alan Watts believes that Christ is an office in which others share then yes. As to the garbage comment, no, but I am referring to the New Age teaching.

 

We've already attempted to address a biblical verse or book by using proper hermeneutics. The invitation to address Genesis 1:1 was declined.

 

God is...

Bible: Father, Personal, Only good, Created all things

New Age Thought: Force, Impersonal, Good and evil, All things

 

Jesus is...

Bible: Second person of Godhead, God and man, Died and rose from dead

New Age Thought: Man who took on Christ office, God in man, Died and was reincarnated

 

Man is...

Bible: Made like God, Evil in present state, Spirit and body, After death, body will be resurrected, Saved by God's grace

New Age Thought: God, Basically good, Basically spirit, After death, body reincarnated, Saved by human works.

 

 

Genesis 1 establishes that the Bible does not start off literal and does not give us any real time description of origins. As in, it does not give us an "objective revelation" from an all-knowing, supernatural god. That is clear to anyone who reads the texts and is honest with themselves. You chose not to engage the argument. That was a good choice on your part because you have no way out of it. We could go on for a thousand pages and you'd never make it to high ground. 

 

Turning our attention to the above, the bible is used to claim that god is "infinite, eternal, immanent and transcendent, and omnipresent." Something that is all of these things is necessarily, "all things." Omni-everything amount to "all-things." Presence beyond space and time, both inside and outside of the universe, with no beginning or end, being present through all of space, matter, dark matter, anti-matter, amounts to being everywhere and everything. This dichotomy between the bible and New Age thought, as you've framed it, is another example of a false dichotomy.

 

And it comes from the fact that god is an evolved concept in the bible. The Jews were polytheistic at first and their god concepts were not always this universal. That was a later evolution in Judaism. So mixed into the bible are both concepts of god as a national tribal god and god as a universal and more absolute god. They are tossed in together, and these are more examples of internally inconsistent ideas presented in "scripture." And I mean that kindly, as if to help you out and nudge you along into thinking deeper about what you've been saying. For the sake of possible growth on your part, William. 

 

So if an omnipresent (omni-everything shall we say) god breaks down to everything, and everyone, regardless of whether or not you understand that you share that same situation with New Age thinkers, that means that God is basically existence itself, or "reality" as Langan, the guy with the 200 IQ mentioned. Because a comprehensive mind can quickly put that all together - the necessary conclusion of an omni-everything god claim. It means that the god concept has to refer to everyone and everything or else, it's NOT omni-everything. NOT omnipresent. And in some areas of the bible, it isn't. That's because with different men writing the bible in different periods, each with conflicting opinions, it's no surprise to find that at the base of biblical god belief we find glaring internal inconsistency and ill-logic applied between the various claims made therein. Again, I say this kindly, to your potential benefit and growth as a person. 

 

So where this mystical discussion is held at the moment is in you explaining to me, the others reading, and you yourself (more importantly) how God can be both omni-everything, and NOT existence itself. And if existence itself, how that does NOT apply to 'everyone and everything?' 

 

I'm interested in how you'd like to approach the issue. Because following your response, you locked the thread and the shut discussion down. But I will not do the same here. The discussion will remain open. 

[ag_NO_stic]

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is false.  @ag_NO_stic asked you for clarification and even called you out for seeming to ignore her.  I, and several other members, told you that your question was improperly framed and needed to be rephrased.  You were given the opportunity to clarify.  You opted not to.

 

19 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

William ( @Christforums ), you were not actively persecuted here for your faith, you sought us out on our forum and made comments about "some" having "third grade level education on Christianity" without having any idea what some of us have been through. You can't come in, make comments like that, throw in a "God Bless" knowing how we'd probably feel about it, and then behave as though we've just victimized you without having done anything wrong.  

 

Just consider our side if only for a moment. It's easy, from your perspective, to say that you came in and gave a friendly invitation and "that's all" and we "just attacked you" for "no reason" which is not really what happened. We have this forum for ex-christians, one of which you are not; people to find healing and community among other people with similar paths and wounds. We also made a subforum for proselytizing, instead of banning you, because we don't want to be those kind of people. So we direct believers who wish to interact with us to the lion's den where some of our comfortably deconverted will tackle the "same ole, same ole" material. Very often, our refusal to "play along" turns into "an attack." But, we aren't seeking these people out to just bully or persecute them for their faith, we are defending our own beliefs and how we got there from "friendly greetings" that are often "you'll burn forever" messages wrapped up with an "I'm better than you" bow. We receive regular "friendly greetings" from people who "aren't here to evangelize" (nearly indistinguishable from your initial one) and then, after we ask questions that can be difficult to answer or give unexpected responses, our guests are "called away by God" (with or without some kind of warning about eternal torment). It starts to look really disingenuous in our eyes. With your greeting specifically, there was a condescending tone that we could not have known you meant as friendly until we interacted more with you. 

 

This really does appear to be miscommunication all around. Can't we just all agree to set aside some of the aggressiveness, put down the fists and dialogue?

 

6 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

Let's not worry about my invitation as it has now expired.

 

 

I can no longer "fake" on another site as though I do not see the comments, behavior, and treatment that I have received on this site. Why should I "pretend" to ignore the evidence? 

 

While the moderator "cleaned up" the threads it was nothing but dressing up people in the finest silk.

 

 

 

I'm done here, y'all, have more self-respect than this. I didn't even bother hunting down and quoting the other things I've said to him, he hasn't bothered to respond to me since I called him on "the only genuine post" around here. As I well remember from protestant theology, us women folk aren't apparently supposed to teach the males or act in such an un-submissive way. That's the only reason I can see for repeatedly trying to interact with William, going to his site, apologizing for my behavior, asking questions, and nothing. Some of us weren't initially "nice", no, we made assumptions about William being an evangelist and treated him with more aggression than the situation warranted considering his unintended insults to us. But one thing is for dang sure, several of us still apologized and changed our behavior. Several of us went to his site and followed his site's rules as best we could considering we aren't believers. We recognized we were wrong and fixed it. 

 

Let us take note of this difference, as it seems @Christforumswould much rather hang on to a grudge, rescind invitations, and berate us for our behavior from some kind of pedestal instead of being willing to see how he contributed to the situation. This isn't even an assumption anymore at this point, we can only go off what he says. Don't worry, William, lucky for us, I don't believe bible god exists, so he's not judging you. But your beliefs hold that God has told you to freely forgive. Actually, it says to let someone slap your other cheek.  

 

I'm sorry, AGAIN, for the ways you have felt insulted. I'm not sorry for standing up to your presuppositions. If you feel like apologizing OR forgiving, you can join me up here on the moral play-- I mean high ground.  

 

 

[pratt]

after seeing his reply to my questions, this william guy has ZERO sincerity, and his christforums is a joke. 

 

i try not to be rude, but he can go and fuck himself for all i care

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Unless something happened in the PM realm that the rest of the public doesnt know about, i see no reason why anyone should be apologizing to @Christforums.  I didn't really see any undue aggression, and whatever frustration, or snarkiness, that he was on the receiving end of, he brought on himself, by being ill-prepared to deal with hard questions from different opinions. 

 

He was given every opportunity to clarify his position and have a productive discourse with us; but he seemed to only want to do that on his own terms.

When most of us refused to play according to his rules, ignoring people's responses became a common theme for him.  He has not responded to a single post of mine since the first time he bid us adieu.   Ag_NO_stic and others shared a similar fate.  These are not the actions of a person who genuinely wants to engage in honest discourse.

 

Further, several members have explained the purposes and guidelines of our forums, concerning where christians should post, and why they should post there (out of respect for those still suffering); but William has refused to set foot back in the Den, and stubbornly continues posting in this forum instead.   Our members on his site respectfully stayed within the thread and forum to which they were invited.  Some of us, myself included, respectfully stayed out of the conversation (Because I know I don't always play nice with others ).

 

All told, nothing publicly occurred on our side that could be remotely considered as persecution or ill-treatment.  In fact, he was treated considerably better than some of the christians have in the past.  Leave him to his delusions.  If regeneration is the work of the holy spirit, then "persecution" probably is, too.

[ag_NO_stic]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

These are not the actions of a person who genuinely wants to engage in honest discourse.

 

This is really true. I'm "not answered" a lot, no big deal. It's a forum lol. We are all familiar with not getting to a post or overlooking it or whatever. Someone picking and choosing what they respond to because it fits with their answers/agenda is NOT an honest, sincere call to dialogue.

[TABA]

I’ve exchanged private messages with William, both on our platform and on his.  They’ve all been respectful and maybe even friendly.  But no meeting of the minds.  There’s quite a chasm between us when it comes to his faith and my lack thereof.  But it’s been useful and I hope it may continue. 

[Orbit]

8 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

Let's not worry about my invitation as it has now expired.

 

 

I can no longer "fake" on another site as though I do not see the comments, behavior, and treatment that I have received on this site. Why should I "pretend" to ignore the evidence? 

 

While the moderator "cleaned up" the threads it was nothing but dressing up people in the finest silk.

 

I received a PM from a member here today which said I should step back and soak in what has happened here. Likewise, that may be quite beneficial.

 

To Note, I just wanted people to know that while I received some resistance behind the scenes in PM I am sincerely praying and was hoping to engage others here.

 

Hi-

What is your actual purpose in being here, honestly? Is it to evangelize? Because if that's your purpose, you're in the wrong place. We were all committed Christians once, and for various reasons rejected the faith. We already know the Bible, in fact for many of us, reading the Bible was part of what led to our deconversion. With that said, I ask you to be honest: why are you here exactly?

[Geezer]

Engaging Christians in an intellectual discussion about religion and faith is a pointless endeavor. Believers and non-believers live in a different universe, so there is no common ground. We look to science, history, logic, and reason for answers. Christians believe the. Bible is literally true and historically accurate. Therefore, they believe the Bible has the answer for all of life’s problems.

 

That is why, primary fundamentalist, will quote scripture when they are questioned. We end up debating the Bible instead of the person. And if we attempt to present evidence to show the Bible is not literally true or historically accurate, we are accused of being agents of Satan. 

 

Therefore, unless a person enjoys frustration and being upset, there is no purpose engaging Christians.

[ag_NO_stic]

16 minutes ago, Geezer said:

Engaging Christians in an intellectual discussion about religion and faith is a pointless endeavor. Believers and non-believers live in a different universe, so there is no common ground. We look to science, history, logic, and reason for answers. Christians believe the. Bible is literally true and historically accurate. Therefore, they believe the Bible has the answer for all of life’s problems.

 

That is why, primary fundamentalist, will quote scripture when they are questioned. We end up debating the Bible instead of the person. And if we attempt to present evidence to show the Bible is not literally true or historically accurate, we are accused of being agents of Satan. 

 

Therefore, unless a person enjoys frustration and being upset, there is no purpose engaging Christians.

 

I do it to show we're not freaking monsters to them or to lurkers who think we "prefer sin to laying down our life for Christ." Wrong, just don't believe that stuff. That's all. Anything else is their labels.

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, ag_NO_stic said:

�

I do it to show we're not freaking monsters to them or to lurkers who think we "prefer sin to laying down our life for Christ." Wrong, just don't believe that stuff. That's all. Anything else is their labels.

Well I commend you for that, honestly I can't be bothered even trying. Due to their beliefs, they will always attach labels to non-believers, so that they can feel justified in what they believe. Thus, I'm fine with wearing the labels, I know it says a lot more about them than it does about me.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Further, several members have explained the purposes and guidelines of our forums, concerning where christians should post, and why they should post there (out of respect for those still suffering); but William has refused to set foot back in the Den, and stubbornly continues posting in this forum instead.   Our members on his site respectfully stayed within the thread and forum to which they were invited.  Some of us, myself included, respectfully stayed out of the conversation (Because I know I don't always play nice with others ).

 

That's how it's going to be. Our invitations have been revoked apparently, but he's welcome to speak here if he'd like to continue dialogue. 

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

42 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Well I commend you for that, honestly I can't be bothered even trying. Due to their beliefs, they will always attach labels to non-believers, so that they can feel justified in what they believe. Thus, I'm fine with wearing the labels, I know it says a lot more about them than it does about me.

 

And I commend you back! I'm cursed with "niceness" and how I make others feel. I have trouble with boundaries sometimes, I always admire the types of people that can just say "Nah" and not be bothered by what others must think. It's something I'm working on in myself and I see that strength in you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

55 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's how it's going to be. Our invitations have been revoked apparently, but he's welcome to speak here if he'd like to continue dialogue. 

 

 

To clarify, what I meant was that William continues to post in this particular forum. (Introductions) rather than in the forum more suited to christians (The Lion's Den).  Certainly, he's more than welcome to continue the dialogue.  But it should be noted that this forum is frequented by newbies and lurkers (those still suffering), which is why a few have pointed out that William should (respectfully) confine his remarks to the Den.  We'll be good; I promise. 

[TruthSeeker0]

34 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

And I commend you back! I'm cursed with "niceness" and how I make others feel. I have trouble with boundaries sometimes, I always admire the types of people that can just say "Nah" and not be bothered by what others must think. It's something I'm working on in myself and I see that strength in you.

Oh people walked over me left, right and centre when I was in the church, but I'm getting better at it. I really only care about what my family thinks now, but just of me as a person and not about my beliefs. Boundaries are hard, in particular with people you haven't practiced them with before. They will try to get around them any way possible, and in some cases I'm left with no other option but to come across as a bit of an unfeeling distant person with some fundies, because the minute I express warmth or even interest in some things, they associate those with "closeness" and attempt to cross them again. (improper boundaries are often misinterpreted as "closeness" within my ex church). As for the rest of the world, meh. I think living with an invisible illness has helped me as well, it gets easier to let the labels slip off and just ignore them, because you get them in many ways.

[ag_NO_stic]

37 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Oh people walked over me left, right and centre when I was in the church, but I'm getting better at it. I really only care about what my family thinks now, but just of me as a person and not about my beliefs. Boundaries are hard, in particular with people you haven't practiced them with before. They will try to get around them any way possible, and in some cases I'm left with no other option but to come across as a bit of an unfeeling distant person with some fundies, because the minute I express warmth or even interest in some things, they associate those with "closeness" and attempt to cross them again. (improper boundaries are often misinterpreted as "closeness" within my ex church). As for the rest of the world, meh. I think living with an invisible illness has helped me as well, it gets easier to let the labels slip off and just ignore them, because you get them in many ways.

 

I get that. I've only in the past year or so begun to be comfortable with accepting that my own opinions have merit too. I would "consider others" so much and how they were feeling that I forgot I'm allowed to be offended or have opinions too. 

 

I'd be really curious to know if that is solely personality or if the whole "women are inferior" thing carried over and I'm just letting myself get walked all over. Just know that at least one person around here is impressed by your boundaries and not caring what others think. 

[LogicalFallacy]

It would seem from all appearances that I is good that I didn't waste time over at Christforums. Unlike some Christian sites where they have open (like its written in their site) arms to non believers, Christforums is very much a this is our doctrine XYZ, anyone outside this is going to hell and we won't tolerate any dissent.

 

However @Christforums we do have dialogue unfinished in the Lion's Den. I note you didn't respond to my last post so perhaps you'd like to continue? You are now aware that there are a variety of members here who range from the quite accommodating, to the more aggressive so hopefully you are better prepared for the Den. You found out why it's called the lions Den, and for Christians I feel it's aptly named. In my time here I've only seen two Christians handle the flow and ebb of the Den with confidence and maturity - sadly one has passed on, the other decided to move on some time ago. 

[TruthSeeker0]

52 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I get that. I've only in the past year or so begun to be comfortable with accepting that my own opinions have merit too. I would "consider others" so much and how they were feeling that I forgot I'm allowed to be offended or have opinions too. 

 

I'd be really curious to know if that is solely personality or if the whole "women are inferior" thing carried over and I'm just letting myself get walked all over

Yup. I started to clue in when my older brother thought it ok that he gives advice/more like tell me what to do because 1. I'm a woman 2. I'm single. There isn't a scenario in which he would be telling my brother how to lead his life down to the specifics ie where he can and cannot live and if he needs a car and judging his choices. When I set the boundaries with him I should have perhaps been more clear about my opinions on this but I concluded he would only think it's "bitterness talking" if I mentioned the being woman and single part. So I just basically told him "this is me setting my boundaries and you'll have to learn to accept it." 

 

It, the patriarchy, is so insidious. It's hard to see when you've been in it your whole life. It also operates in some guys who have also left religion but don't fully realize how the patriarchy and patriarchal values are still so ingrained in society (and them). It'll hurt you when you come across as strong or independent or opinionated ie "masculine values." We women pay for that in real ways, sometimes most in the way we are then treated by insecure men.

 

It could also be I'm in a bit of a rebel stage, ie this is what I was my whole life and hell no I will not be it anymore. But I think more likely, this is just the real me who is finally woke to the way the world works. 

 

Edit: Ag, I don't think you let yourself be walked over. I think it can largely be personality, I'm a lot the same way myself. And it's one of the things I really value in people, taking others into account. 

[ag_NO_stic]

4 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Yup. I started to clue in when my older brother thought it ok that he gives advice/more like tell me what to do because 1. I'm a woman 2. I'm single. There isn't a scenario in which he would be telling my brother how to lead his life down to the specifics ie where he can and cannot live and if he needs a car and judging his choices. When I set the boundaries with him I should have perhaps been more clear about my opinions on this but I concluded he would only think it's "bitterness talking" if I mentioned the being woman and single part. So I just basically told him "this is me setting my boundaries and you'll have to learn to accept it." 

 

It, the patriarchy, is so insidious. It's hard to see when you've been in it your whole life. It also operates in some guys who have also left religion but don't fully realize how the patriarchy and patriarchal values are still so ingrained in society (and them). It'll hurt you when you come across as strong or independent or opinionated ie "masculine values." We women pay for that in real ways, sometimes most in the way we are then treated by insecure men.

 

It could also be I'm in a bit of a rebel stage, ie this is what I was my whole life and hell no I will not be it anymore. But I think more likely, this is just the real me who is finally woke to the way the world works. 

 

 

Yeah, I noticed that with my dad too. I've had people mention to me that my wedding disturbed them with the whole "submit" thing that was stressed. My dad is pissed at my husband because, in my dad's opinion, "She would never have left if I'd still been in charge." Like I can't fucking think for myself.

 

Now I've confused myself again lol. I wonder if I'm sensitive to my intentions being misunderstood, not what people actually think about me or something...? It's like I have separated critique of my ideas from critique of ME. I don't give a flyin crap if someone disagrees with my opinion on something....it eats me alive to think about someone thinking I'm being unreasonable, a jerk, irrational, any other kind of negative label etc just because I'm not explaining my side well. I am like the epitome of nice intentions.........Weird. 

 

Sorry for the quick therapy session detour, y'all. Greetings! xD

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

27 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

....it eats me alive to think about someone thinking I'm being unreasonable, a jerk, irrational, any other kind of negative label etc just because I'm not explaining my side well. I am like the epitome of nice intentions.........Weird. 

As a quick aside, I'll admit to having lost sleep over the thought that I was the person who ran William off the first time.  Not much sleep, mind you; but it did tinge my conscious some.  

[LogicalFallacy]

@ag_NO_stic I think @Christforums was simply unprepared and too sensitive to the hard questions. When you read back, no one got nasty. TRP's tone might have been interpreted as aggressive, but that's not the same as nasty. There's a saying, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire. CF was in the fire and couldn't handle it, and rather than face the questions decided to bail citing unwelcoming behaviour.

 

 

Compared to what gets thrown at non believers, our conduct pales in comparison.