Intolerance

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Yes.

 

So as disillusioned pointed out you attacked the article as ignorant and wrong without providing any examples (That I could see) of what the author actually got wrong. Your comments simply came off as a Christian upset that anyone would dare level criticism as Christianity.

 

Something isn't wrong just because you say so. You have to show where and how. So can you please, using quotes from the article, explain why you think any particular point is wrong.

 

For the record these are the comments in question:

 

Quote

 

It's been a long time since I've visited here. Doesn't anyone here have the guts to call this what it is...an absurd hit piece borne out of sheer ignorance? Or do the rest of you not care to know any more than she?

Sorry but this is such a grossly unfair rendering to take it point by point is not possible.

 

 

Quote

 

"Obviously..." nonsense. An unsubstantiated and utterly ignorant jab with no purpose other than derision.
The FACT is that I have FOR YEARS purposely read and encountered the gamut of personal stories of genuine abuse, pitiable woe and simple boo hoo.
"If you read your bible..."
Please. Gag on that snide allegation. As though only you can truly read it.
I'm sure you could "go on and on". You usually do regardless of a challenge. How bout actually saying something of value?

Look...the article has problems. I noted some. You ignore them. Not my problem.

 

 

So a lot of accusation, but no substance to back it up. Where and how is the article wrong?

 

We await your answer.

 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

No, not any comment. In this case,  mainly just yours. 

 

 

You called the article "grossly unfair", called the author ignorant, and implied that the readers were equally ignorant. If you noted anything specific, I've missed it.  Feel free to draw it to my attention. Otherwise, this is clearly just trolling, and calling it such is not being touchy. It's being accurate.

And mine is a correct observation. She is being unfair and her allusions to the text indicate  a serious lack of understanding. 

I'll learn how to better address things here. Hopefully that will make visits more amiable.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So as disillusioned pointed out you attacked the article as ignorant and wrong without providing any examples (That I could see) of what the author actually got wrong. Your comments simply came off as a Christian upset that anyone would dare level criticism as Christianity.

 

Something isn't wrong just because you say so. You have to show where and how. So can you please, using quotes from the article, explain why you think any particular point is wrong.

 

For the record these are the comments in question:

 

 

 

So a lot of accusation, but no substance to back it up. Where and how is the article wrong?

 

We await your answer.

 

It makes far more sense to provide answer for you in the comment section of the article which is why I posted there. But now I must loop around and answer here because I was "banned" from the comment section.

I chose to post here because it says it is a place for dialogue. But dialogue was occurring in the comment section of the article. And the responses you note were not exactly kind and were condescending toward me (the "obviously" quote and "read your bible") but no reprimand for your own. 

 

All this could take place under the article where it's easy to cite quotes. The Mod has made this difficult. But it's his so I'm under his rule.

[MOHO]

18 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

And mine is a correct observation.

Narcissist much?  

 

[LuthAMF]

10 minutes ago, MOHO said:

Narcissist much?  

 

Sure, that's all it is. Sure.

Dismissive much?

 

The hostility here is palpable. And it is seemingly excused by all means. 

[florduh]

Dude, make a point and back it up with logical argument. Flinging shit like a monkey in a cage doesn't play well anywhere. Do you have a point aside from how unfairly your unfair and unsupported criticism was treated? And why so angry? Where's that "peace which passeth all understanding?"

[LogicalFallacy]

26 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Sure, that's all it is. Sure.

Dismissive much?

 

The hostility here is palpable. And it is seemingly excused by all means. 

 

Spare us your self righteous posts.

 

Let me quote you: "Doesn't anyone here have the guts to call this what it is...an absurd hit piece borne out of sheer ignorance?"... " An unsubstantiated and utterly ignorant jab with no purpose other than derision"

 

And we are dismissive and hostile??

 

I have asked you nicely several times to state your problems with the piece clearly and you refuse, instead resorting to semantics. Many of us here do not frequent the blog, yet you came here to complain. So make your points that actually critique the article or leave.

[ToHellWithMe]

25 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

The hostility here is palpable. And it is seemingly excused by all means. 

 

When you're in a hostile place, perhaps you should act polite and courteous. Indignant attitude and haughtiness is only gonna get you a bloody nose.

Learn the game. An underdog has to play differently from the dominant one.

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

And mine is a correct observation. She is being unfair and her allusions to the text indicate  a serious lack of understanding. 

 

So you say. But you apparently don't care to elaborate. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

Or not.

[JohnnyWishbone]

37 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Sure, that's all it is. Sure.

Dismissive much?

 

The hostility here is palpable. And it is seemingly excused by all means. 

It's says on your profile your a true believer, right? As a true believer your only responsibility is to be a slave of all, you need to put your personal agenda's last, serve and love others as Jesus would.

 

Or do you not believe that's what Jesus expected?

 

 

[LuthAMF]

8 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

It's says on your profile your a true believer, right? As a true believer your only responsibility is to be a slave of all, you need to put your personal agenda's last, serve and love others as Jesus would.

 

Or do you not believe that's what Jesus expected?

 

 

The profile status is provided for us by the hierarchy here. Newbies are evidently termed "true believers". I didn't choose that moniker. 

[JohnnyWishbone]

Just now, LuthAMF said:

The profile status is provided for us by the hierarchy here. Newbies are evidently termed "true believers". I didn't choose that moniker. 

So your not a true believer, excellent. 

 

Welcome to the dark side, and remember what Jesus said.

 

"When two delusions meet in his name, whatever the delusion may be. A greater delusion shall appear to be done for them"

[LuthAMF]

20 minutes ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

When you're in a hostile place, perhaps you should act polite and courteous. Indignant attitude and haughtiness is only gonna get you a bloody nose.

Learn the game. An underdog has to play differently from the dominant one.

I already conceded the point that this is "home turf" and that I'll learn to address things better to make it more amiable. Grant me that, at least.

 

18 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

So you say. But you apparently don't care to elaborate. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

Or not.

 

[LuthAMF]

22 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

So you say. But you apparently don't care to elaborate. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

Or not.

I began to in the most logical place...THE ARTICLE ITSELF. Please at least read what I've said here. I wanted a reason or at least a warning before being banned there. 

 

The response here though is highly predictable. It seems I've met you all before.

[LogicalFallacy]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I began to in the most logical place...THE ARTICLE ITSELF. Please at least read what I've said here. I wanted a reason or at least a warning before being banned there. 

 

The response here though is highly predictable. It seems I've met you all before.

 

Ok this is going in circles.

 

We know you commented - I posted what comments I could find. None of them contained an actual critique, merely your opinion that they were wrong.

 

Asking the members why you were banned is a bit pointless as all banning on every forum I've ever been to has been done by Mods and Admin so the correct path in that case is contacting them directly which is very easy.

 

So now that we all know that's the case, and apparently you have issues with the article... what are your actual points?

 

You think it's "an absurd hit piece borne out of sheer ignorance".

 

Why?

[JohnnyWishbone]

9 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I began to in the most logical place...THE ARTICLE ITSELF. Please at least read what I've said here. I wanted a reason or at least a warning before being banned there. 

 

The response here though is highly predictable. It seems I've met you all before.

But your back! Hmm, you must really want to be here. Why do you want to be here? 

 

I remember many times when I joined Christian forums, I'd be asked the question "Why did you come here?" No matter what reason I gave them, those Christians had to believe that it was their God that was involved in me joining their forums.

[LuthAMF]

27 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Ok this is going in circles.

 

We know you commented - I posted what comments I could find. None of them contained an actual critique, merely your opinion that they were wrong.

 

Asking the members why you were banned is a bit pointless as all banning on every forum I've ever been to has been done by Mods and Admin so the correct path in that case is contacting them directly which is very easy.

 

So now that we all know that's the case, and apparently you have issues with the article... what are your actual points?

 

You think it's "an absurd hit piece borne out of sheer ignorance".

 

Why?

Not asking the members. Dave responded saying I'm a troll. I'm not a troll. I looked for the way to contact him. Sorry...didn't see it.

But you're right...going in circles.

 

Look. I'm not here to become a trouble maker. *I respect this site for what it is. OK?* 

All I wanted was to address certain points in the comm section of the article. Plain and simple. Not gonna happen so whatever. 

[LuthAMF]

30 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

But your back! Hmm, you must really want to be here. Why do you want to be here? 

 

I remember many times when I joined Christian forums, I'd be asked the question "Why did you come here?" No matter what reason I gave them, those Christians had to believe that it was their God that was involved in me joining their forums.

I'm back???? What do you mean?

 

Your participation in Christian forums is irrelevant to this. 

 

Nobody put a gun to my head. I didn't just stumble upon this site. I already said I had been here a long time ago.

[LuthAMF]

53 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

So your not a true believer, excellent. 

 

Welcome to the dark side, and remember what Jesus said.

 

"When two delusions meet in his name, whatever the delusion may be. A greater delusion shall appear to be done for them"

I only said I did not choose that moniker that defines my status here as new. All the rest you just said you made up and assumed.

 

Why would you call your side "The dark side"? I thought you were all the enlightened ones?

[JohnnyWishbone]

16 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I'm back???? What do you mean?

 

Your participation in Christian forums is irrelevant to this. 

 

Nobody put a gun to my head. I didn't just stumble upon this site. I already said I had been here a long time ago.

Alright, fuck you you germ.

 

I'm not going to play your head games.

[LogicalFallacy]

37 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

All I wanted was to address certain points in the comm section of the article. Plain and simple. Not gonna happen so whatever. 

 

So address them. You say you want to but then say you aren't going to.

 

Someone hand me a brick wall

 

 

 

Thank you!

[LuthAMF]

37 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I only said I did not choose that moniker that defines my status here as new. All the rest you just said you made up and assumed.

 

Why would you call your side "The dark side"? I thought you were all the enlightened ones?

LOOK! Now I'm a questioner! And sincere. I've been promoted.

[LuthAMF]

24 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

Alright, fuck you you germ.

 

I'm not going to play your head games.

No games. But you sure are the friendly one.

[JohnnyWishbone]

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

No games. But you sure are the friendly one.

I'm the actual living Antichrist.

 

(Like)

[MOHO]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

I began to in the most logical place...THE ARTICLE ITSELF. Please at least read what I've said here. I wanted a reason or at least a warning before being banned there. 

 

The response here though is highly predictable. It seems I've met you all before.

I have read the article, and your comments, sir, and you, in no way whatsoever, gave any logical, rational, meaningful evidence or reason for your critical claims of the well written, researched, clear and concise article of a well respected professional authority on harmful religion.

 

 And it is clear to me and, I'm sure, all others on this thread that you know and understand that. If you do not then you are in desperate need of serious mental help.