Jump to content

Peanut Gallery for Hierophant vs PittsburghJoe


Recommended Posts

You make a good point @WalterP. I think his posts should probably be strictly limited to debate format so that someone can counter any of his ramblings. Let him say his peace but always squash him rather quickly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I see your point Del but he does have a different angle. And while right now that angle is a very poor one. I can see where it can be developed into another scientology or latter day saints. Joseph Sm

This raises an interesting possibility TABA, perhaps one without precedent in Ex-C.   Let's say that no other members ever engage with Joe in the Den, which is where he's confined.  

When all this Joe bullshit is over, could someone please explain the attraction to engaging him, not to mention all this convoluted forum hopping and multiple topics. He's getting more attention than

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

You make a good point @WalterP. I think his posts should probably be strictly limited to debate format so that someone can counter any of his ramblings. Let him say his peace but always squash him rather quickly. 

 

But any attempt to counter his ramblings simply pays him more attention, DB.

 

He's not acting exactly like a Troll, but his activities are Troll-like.

 

And if you wouldn't feed a troll, why would you feed a pseudo-troll?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance.”

 

Walter,

 

I suspect "equally aggressive resistance" includes moderators' use of the ban hammer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sdelsolray said:

Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance.”

 

Walter,

 

I suspect "equally aggressive resistance" includes moderators' use of the ban hammer.

 

Oh ok, sdelsolray.

 

That's an interpretation of the rules I'd never considered.

 

Thanks for pointing out this new angle.

 

:)

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok he's calling me out now. I want a chance to prepare a little. Not to mention I'm about to go out for margaritas here in a little while.. @TABA could you set Joe and I up a thread tomorrow sometime.. I've been giving his views serious thought and I'm ready to prepare a Sunday lesson for him. I really don't want to. I'd rather him just move the fuck on. But it is what it is. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok he's calling me out now. I want a chance to prepare a little. Not to mention I'm about to go out for margaritas here in a little while.. @TABA could you set Joe and I up a thread tomorrow sometime.. I've been giving his views serious thought and I'm ready to prepare a Sunday lesson for him. I really don't want to. I'd rather him just move the fuck on. But it is what it is. 

 

Please don't do it, DB.

 

You're feeding him and also telling him that he can play us.

 

That only makes him stronger.

 

Also, think of the lurkers.

 

Starve him of what he wants... attention.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Please don't do it, DB.

 

You're feeding him and also telling him that he can play us.

 

That only makes him stronger.

 

Also, think of the lurkers.

 

Starve him of what he wants... attention.

 

Walter.

His theory is ridiculous walter. Surely we need to point out all the holes in it. I mean its gone this far. If there are lurkers they need to see all the holes in his bullshit excuse to keep believing himself. There is only one way someone can come up with something this crazy. He's desperate to hold on to the faith he was losing. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the admins wish to end it now tho let me know. Its fine. But I do believe I have a pretty good angle to argue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

If the admins wish to end it now tho let me know. Its fine. But I do believe I have a pretty good angle to argue. 

 

We're discussing. 

 

Get back to you soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Please don't do it, DB.

 

You're feeding him and also telling him that he can play us.

 

That only makes him stronger.

 

Also, think of the lurkers.

 

Starve him of what he wants... attention.

 

Walter.

 

As of right now, Joe can play with us Walter. And it doesn't make him stronger from what I'm seeing. It actually destroys his positions the more he speaks. The more people keep cornering him the more ridiculous his beliefs are revealed. Lurkers see it. Everyone sees it. 

 

That doesn't mean he won't be banned. We're taking everyone's opinions into consideration. And discussing it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

His theory is ridiculous walter. Surely we need to point out all the holes in it. I mean its gone this far. If there are lurkers they need to see all the holes in his bullshit excuse to keep believing himself. There is only one way someone can come up with something this crazy. He's desperate to hold on to the faith he was losing. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, DB.

 

But having tackled him for myself, here's what I've learned.

 

1. 

You can't pin him down to scripture, because he says it's just a guide.  So he's granted himself licence to interpret it any way he wants and anyone who disagrees is wrong because he's been anointed by the holy spirit.

 

2.

You can't pin him down to science for the same reason as above.  Only he has authority to interpret science in the correct way.

 

3.

You can't pin him down to the exact meaning of words for the same reason.  Only he has authority to interpret the meaning of words correctly and everyone else (that would be you, DB) is just wrong.

 

4.  

You can't pin him down to any logical inconsistencies in his theology or science, for the same reason.

 

Now, you don't have to go through the same process of learning this for yourself, DB.

 

I've done that for you when I took him on.

 

So, what's to be gained here except more exposure, more air time and more audience interest for him?

 

It's a win/win/win scenario for him if you give him what he wants.

 

Starvation is best.

 

Walter.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

If the admins wish to end it now tho let me know. Its fine. But I do believe I have a pretty good angle to argue. 

 

You'll lose, DB.

 

This isn't a fight you can win.

 

Moreover, it's a fight you shouldn't accept, because it'll take place on his terms, not yours.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

As of right now, Joe can play with us Walter. And it doesn't make him stronger from what I'm seeing. It actually destroys his positions the more he speaks. The more people keep cornering him the more ridiculous his beliefs are revealed. Lurkers see it. Everyone sees it. 

 

That doesn't mean he won't be banned. We're taking everyone's opinions into consideration. And discussing it. 

 

Ok Josh.

 

I yield and will simply watch.

 

Walter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

You'll lose, DB.

 

This isn't a fight you can win.

 

Moreover, it's a fight you shouldn't accept, because it'll take place on his terms, not yours.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece.

 

If the debate is set up to declare that whoever makes the claim has to satisfy the burden of proof requirement for the claim, it's a fight that Joe can't win. 

 

So that should be clarified. Joe has to demonstrate the truth of Joe's claims. If DB sets forward positive claims, same thing. If DB is just skeptical of Joe's claim, how could Joe win unless Joe demonstrates the truth of his own claims? 

 

Only one way for Joe to win. 

 

"No one goes to the father (winner) but through me (burden of proof requirement)!" 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If the debate is set up to declare that whoever makes the claim has to satisfy the burden of proof requirement for the claim, it's a fight that Joe can't win. 

 

So that should be clarified. Joe has to demonstrate the truth of Joe's claims. If DB sets forward positive claims, same thing. If DB is just skeptical of Joe's claim, how could Joe win unless Joe demonstrates the truth of his own claims? 

 

Only one way for Joe to win. 

 

"No one goes to the father (winner) but through me (burden of proof requirement)!" 

 

Perhaps you could set up Dark Bishop's and Joe's debate as a thread (only for them) in the Colosseum subform, utilizing it's rules and consequences for not following them, with a companion peanut gallery for comments.  Granted, the Arena subforum no longer exists, but that shouldn't matter.

 

The rules for the Colosseum subforum are as follows:

 

This section is for more serious debate. Although this section is not as formal as "The Arena," all posts should remain "on topic" at all times.

If a topic degenerates and wanders away from the topic, as frequently happens when people disagree, the entire topic may be moved to "The Lion's Den,"closed, or deleted altogether. Offending posters may even receive warnings.

The point of this section is for those members who would like to see and participate in informal, yet serious, debate.

If a discussion becomes more serious and the debaters would prefer to have a more formal discussion, a moderator can be solicited to move the discussion to the Arena.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Gnostic Joe is too much. He is calling you out Walter...

 

Joe, out of curiosity, how old are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If the debate is set up to declare that whoever makes the claim has to satisfy the burden of proof requirement for the claim, it's a fight that Joe can't win. 

 

So that should be clarified. Joe has to demonstrate the truth of Joe's claims. If DB sets forward positive claims, same thing. If DB is just skeptical of Joe's claim, how could Joe win unless Joe demonstrates the truth of his own claims? 

 

Only one way for Joe to win. 

 

"No one goes to the father (winner) but through me (burden of proof requirement)!" 

 

Hmmm...

 

I have a further thought about the term and conditions you've outlined above Josh, but since I've committed myself to yielding, watching and waiting, I'll keep my counsel until afterward.

 

Walter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If the debate is set up to declare that whoever makes the claim has to satisfy the burden of proof requirement for the claim, it's a fight that Joe can't win. 

 

 

He'll just wiggle, squirm, avoid, deflect, move goalposts, contradict his own previous posts. The only important thing to him is spreading the Holy Wave Function of Jesus gospel. These one on one debates are a great idea but I guarantee the Christian will never be heard saying, "You know, God really did screw over Adam and Eve. That test wasn't fair at all." 

 

The entertainment value is good if you're bored on a Saturday, but I think even 'regular' Christians might consider Joe severely delusional. And so why seriously engage the severely delusional?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Gnostic Joe is too much. He is calling you out Walter...

 

Joe, out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

In the film, The Fugitive, what three words did Tommy Lee Jones say to Harrison Ford in the tunnel under the dam, when Ford had a gun trained on him?

 

That's my considered response to Joe, Hierophant.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we do debate there does need to be a rule. Joe must support his narrative with the Bible. He as a Christian and apparently "Gods messenger" to us. (Pause for eye roll) should be able to do that.. I will most likely start off asking questions like Walter did until he gives a definite answer. This "I think" and "I believe" bullshit has to stop. If he is Christian he should be versed enough to support his thought with his own holy book. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

If we do debate there does need to be a rule. Joe must support his narrative with the Bible. He as a Christian and apparently "Gods messenger" to us. (Pause for eye roll) should be able to do that.. I will most likely start off asking questions like Walter did until he gives a definite answer. This "I think" and "I believe" bullshit has to stop. If he is Christian he should be versed enough to support his thought with his own holy book. 

 

Ha - good luck with that. I am taking a stab in the dark, but I do not think that Joe is really well versed in the Bible. Moreover, I think he is a rather new convert burning with zeal. I recognize some of the tendencies. I once knew of a guy who was recently saved and thought he was being called to the border between Mexico and Texas to stop prostitution. He was going to literally quite doing everything else and focus on that mission. New converts always feel they have something to prove, that they need to show their faith to God. What better place than to find a bunch of apostates and let them know they made a grave mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Joe is not a conventional Protestant Christian.  He is somewhat Catholic and regards the Bible as “a guide” which means it may be ignored when inconvenient. Joe’s theology comes directly from the Holy Spirit, bypassing the Pope and the Church.  Who are we to question what has been revealed only to him?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am POSITIVE that Joe will follow the posting rules laid out by the moderators. History bears this out.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Benny Hinn gives me the LOLs

 

I will say, I hate that people with real problems get swindled by this guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I'll add some of my thoughts on the next debate here in the gallery. 

 

Joe has set up a situation where the tree of knowledge of good and evil ushers Adam into this fallen reality. And he refuses so far to argue objectively for his claims. But according to this theology, the objective world of time and space is Satan. Objective thinking equates to Satan. It looks to me like Joe has stripped himself from the ability to apply objectivity to his reasoning in the process. Most christians regard the world as fallen, sure, but they don't go so far as to strip themselves the very ability to think objectively at times. 

 

It's completely subjective all the way through. 

 

That's why the objective texts of the bible aren't set in stone. Science isn't set in stone. Nothing is set in stone except for his own personal subjective thinking and experience. Which he determines is the holy spirit. It can't be reasoned with, logic applied, or tested in any way. 

 

Rendering it more so the "spirit of holes" than the "holy spirit" if you ask me. 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.