Hello from a non-religious new person

[zippy2006]

I'll go for a quick reply so as not to derail:

No. I responded to you and the challenge on the issue of charity by way of the scripture you advanced to support it. I used Hughes commentary on that point of disagreement. My response to Reasonator was to challenge what seemed to me at best an ill considered foundation and at worst intentionally misleading and damaging statements.

In post 23 I literally said my point in the parallel was:

"to illustrate what you only just did here and the reasonable response you might expect if you were inclined to see the other side of it. A pretty clear parallel for someone with your education to miss. You might want to ask yourself why that is."

That is, I meant to force a defense and reexamination.

Here is the exchange I spoke of:

If there is any misunderstanding about your marriage example and my response to it, I would submit that rather than my poor, insufficient theological education, perhaps it's your inability to communicate clearly, and in a charitable way.

You don't invite charity by sneering at my faith. You find it a source of intellectual amusement? Fine. Keep your gloves up.

You're just wrong in this, zip. You're letting your personal irritation with our ongoing arguments over differences in our faith and practice get the best of you and it's sad to see it spill over into this public setting.

…and I could just as easily state my belief that your reading and error is a manifestation of your pride, but what purpose would that serve?

At that point the parallel...playing a game?

If you believe you acted in charity in this thread then there is nothing more to be said, and my post stands in its essence with reference to someone who actually is acting as I mistook you to be. There are a few reasons I believe I am correct in thinking that Reasonator may have had a point in questioning the spirit of your response. The fact is, Reasonator felt that your posts lacked charity, I felt that your posts lacked charity, and I'm guessing there are quite a few others who felt that way. Many of your statements seem intentionally provocative, as if you were looking to pick a fight, to elicit a negative response. The fact that Reasonator and many of your opponents consistently feel the same way makes me think that maybe they have a point. The only time Reasonator should feel as if you are being uncharitable (as if you are attacking him) should be in the case of a misunderstanding. But that feeling is elicited from atheists you engage every day on this forum in a very consistent manner. Such would be a very grand coincidence of misunderstandings and ineffective communication if you were truly being charitable to all of these different people and each of them perceived it as uncharitableness.

You can call me a hypocrite all you like (both in private and in public). I confess it readily. I err in many of the same areas you do; we are very similar in that.

And the comparisons of your behavior to Jesus' are rather misplaced to say the least. Jesus did not engage others on a constant basis and leave them feeling as if they had been attacked, ridiculed, mocked, and injured. Indeed I think Reasonator has done reasonably well in not returning tit for tat, for while sustaining what he has perceived as direct attacks he has not retaliated in anything nearing the same order.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I loved your post. It sounds like something I would have written myself. I guess the thing is that stuff is relative. I didn't see anything TH wrote as uncharitable. I did see it as boundry-establishing.

It's hard to know what's in someone's heart. Sometimes I really make people angry and apparently hurt their feelings, when I am thinking I am just being brief or informative or sometimes funny!

I don't feel like an arrogant fool as I was recently called, but then, I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining the basics of something I spent years and $ studying to get some guy to accept my definition of "theory" is correct and his is wrong. Just look it up, and let's move on.

I think I'm getting curmudgeonly in my old age. :mmph:

Anyway, I'm sure it's a good thing for us to challenge each other to be more charitable, but I also think it's thread-derailing and perhaps best kept to private communications unless someone is just not listening and we feel a real need to confront them publicly.

In any case, always enjoy your posts.

'frac <--I like it!

Sounds good 'frac D). You've a good point about the derailing and it is obviously edging on pride for me myself to be rebuking another Christian for any extended period of time. I've just seen it too often and said nothing to be quiet today , but end soon, it will. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

I had some misgivings about the modern Church, and how churches are often operated...

Randy Arendell has a book for you.

 

[Town Heretic]

Here is the exchange I spoke of:

Okay. I was referencing your criticism, scripture and my response. So we were looking at two different things then.

…and I could just as easily state my belief that your reading and error is a manifestation of your pride, but what purpose would that serve?

Well, it would illustrate an ongoing assumption of yours met point by point, assertion by assertion, in private.

If you believe you acted in charity in this thread then there is nothing more to be said,

I acted in defense of the faith and with a particular purpose. I set out the rest.

There are a few reasons I believe I am correct in thinking that Reasonator may have had a point in questioning the spirit of your response.

I'd hope so. I'd like to think that most people argue points they honestly believe in, right or wrong though the conclusion.

The fact is, Reasonator felt that your posts lacked charity,

I've answered Reasonator. The fact is that it's a subjective opinion and do you imagine anyone challenged on a subject that goes to his context for living would consider it charitable? I don't.

I felt that your posts lacked charity, and I'm guessing there are quite a few others who felt that way.

Odd that you don't give me a more charitable reading or odds.

Many of your statements seem intentionally provocative, as if you were looking to pick a fight, to elicit a negative response.

Challenges are by nature provocative. I mean to at least have forced a consideration. The rest is up to him.

The fact that Reasonator and many of your opponents consistently feel the same way makes me think that maybe they have a point.

I'd have to see the people who feel that way to tell you if it troubles me. I've reached out to a number of people I respect who don't appear to share your opinion. Who knows?

The only time Reasonator should feel as if you are being uncharitable (as if you are attacking him) should be in the case of a misunderstanding.

That's certainly your opinion. I differ. I've given illustration of that difference using someone even you can't fault for character. I can live with that and my general practice, which is more often humorous and amiable enough.

But that feeling is elicited from atheists you engage every day on this forum in a very consistent manner.

Again, no. Some atheists would agree with you. Heck, some of the faithful too, comes to a show of hands. And I've set out a few names privately of others with whom I've had ongoing and utterly civil, amiable differences. But you aren't interested in those. And that should concern you.

...You can call me a hypocrite all you like (both in private and in public).

How many times have I done that and where? I have noted you keep a different standard for yourself than you apply to me. That is hypocritical, but I don't think it makes for a habitual character defect. Mostly I think you're a poor sport who had his nose punched once upon a time and has been passive/aggressive since. I don't even think you mean to be, entirely. It's still irksome though.

I confess it readily. I err in many of the same areas you do; we are very similar in that.

I've heard you utter that sort of general sentiment more than once, but I've yet to see it particularly applied in our differences. Luckily, you must always be in the right in our disagreements, at every point.

And the comparisons of your behavior to Jesus' are rather misplaced to say the least.

Again with the meanest inference. I said Christ is our example. He wasn't always mild in approach. I'm comfortable with that example and it's use here.

Jesus did not engage others on a constant basis and leave them feeling as if they had been attacked, ridiculed, mocked, and injured.

Neither do I. That you'd advance that unreasonable a position should give you pause. I didn't get my rep by offending everyone, or by playing to the majority opinion either. I take people as I find them and apply the methodology that seems appropriate to me.

 

[zippy2006]

The only time Reasonator should feel as if you are being uncharitable (as if you are attacking him) should be in the case of a misunderstanding.

That's certainly your opinion. I differ. I've given illustration of that difference using someone even you can't fault for character. I can live with that and my general practice, which is more often humorous and amiable enough.

How can you differ? You attack atheists on this forum, which is precisely why the atheists you attack feel as if you are attacking them (certainly you don't attack everyone, which is obviously why not every feels as if you are attacking them). If you feel you are being attacked, you attack them back, and they note it. That isn't charity and is my whole point. If this uncharitableness were a mistake made now and then that would be one thing, but the fact that it is part and parcel of your method is the problem. :idunno:

 

[reasonator]

I've been off of work and away from the forum for a couple days, and I just caught up on the discussion. I'll be posting a longer response late tonight, particularly regarding some statements and questions zippy and refractive made.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How can you differ? You attack atheists on this forum, which is precisely why the atheists you attack feel as if you are attacking them (certainly you don't attack everyone, which is obviously why not every feels as if you are attacking them). If you feel you are being attacked, you attack them back, and they note it. That isn't charity and is my whole point. If this uncharitableness were a mistake made now and then that would be one thing, but the fact that it is part and parcel of your method is the problem. :idunno:

Zips, he's more than free to differ with your opinion as you are with his. And lets face it dude, it's not like there's been several times where plenty atheists have thought your method and approach to debate has been more than a tad irritating if you're honest about it? I myself have found your approach to certain conversations I've been invested in myself to be on the arrogant side on occasion. As you know I certainly don't agree with TH on everything. There are certain subjects where we're poles apart but I've very rarely questioned his integrity or method of practice. Is TH faultless in the arena of debate? Nope, then nobody is including you and me, so this public remonstration you seem insistent upon is serving what exactly? If you've got issues with TH it would be best to address it in private wouldn't it?

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

How can you differ?

Easily. Unlike you, I've read just about everything I've written here over the past few years. lain:

You attack atheists on this forum, which is precisely why the atheists you attack feel as if you are attacking them (certainly you don't attack everyone, which is obviously why not every feels as if you are attacking them).

I contest with atheists on that point, sure. My method varies, depending on the atheist. I don't think Mighty Duck or rex or Rusha or any number of friends of mine who share that context will tell you the felt mocked, ridiculed or particularly attacked, to use a few of the descriptives you'd make my standard fare.

If you feel you are being attacked, you attack them back, and they note it.

That's quite a qualifier though, isn't it? Where I'd say it's true enough now and again, but as a rule, even then, I try to elevate that sort of thing, being a fan of Disraeli, Wilde, and Bugs Bunny.

That isn't charity and is my whole point.

Then it's a suddenly amended one, which is an improvement. Read over your previous and you won't find that restraint. Good. And I've answered you on the point of charity in relation to the subject and methodology in play. I don't have anything to add to it.

If this uncharitableness were a mistake made now and then that would be one thing, but the fact that it is part and parcel of your method is the problem.

And you're right back to it then.

To summarize: beans.

 

[zippy2006]

That isn't charity and is my whole point.

Then it's a suddenly amended one, which is an improvement. Read over your previous and you won't find that restraint.

:jawdrop: That is patently false. From my very first post toward you I have been examining the concept of loving one's enemies, this response of yours being the triggering element:

If there is any misunderstanding about your marriage example and my response to it, I would submit that rather than my poor, insufficient theological education, perhaps it's your inability to communicate clearly, and in a charitable way.

You don't invite charity by sneering at my faith. You find it a source of intellectual amusement? Fine. Keep your gloves up.

When I said it is part of your method, I thought it was obvious that I meant it is part of your method against those atheists who irritate you. If that wasn't clear I apologize, but I figured you were smart enough to realize that I wasn't claiming that you act uncharitably toward friends or people who you have no problem with. :chuckle: (Matthew 5:47)

But I'm glad you understand my point and this can be ended :cheers:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:jawdrop: That is patently false. From my very first post toward you I have been examining the concept of loving one's enemies, this response of yours being the triggering element:



When I said it is part of your method, I thought it was obvious that I meant it is part of your method against those atheists who irritate you. If that wasn't clear I apologize, but I figured you were smart enough to realize that I wasn't claiming that you act uncharitably toward friends or people who you have no problem with. :chuckle: (Matthew 5:47)

But I'm glad you understand my point and this can be ended :cheers:

Zippy, you're being far from charitable yourself here and not just a little bit hypocritical given your own track record. How many atheists/agnostics have got completely sick and tired of your own 'method' on here? Plenty is what so quit banging this drum. If you've got a beef with TH then this ain't the way to go about it dude.

lain:

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy, you're being far from charitable yourself here and not just a little bit hypocritical given your own track record. How many atheists/agnostics have got completely sick and tired of your own 'method' on here? Plenty is what so quit banging this drum. If you've got a beef with TH then this ain't the way to go about it dude.

lain:

AB, read the thread before you comment, and as to the offline bit, it has been done, though I know for a fact that you haven't taken your own advice there, which is part of the reason why you don't seem to understand the context. :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

AB, read the thread before you comment, and as to the offline bit, it has been done, though I know for a fact that you haven't taken your own advice there, which is part of the reason why you don't seem to understand the context. :idunno:

You see zips, this is an example of your own arrogance and presumption which has been so irritating in the past frankly. FYI I had read this entire thread before commenting and I actually made a point to do so after initially only reading the last two pages earlier today after the latter gained my attention. Unless you've changed tack then accusing anyone else of being uncharitable in conversations with others you've no ground to do so given your own track record here.

 

[zippy2006]

You see zips, this is an example of your own arrogance and presumption which has been so irritating in the past frankly. FYI I had read this entire thread before commenting and I actually made a point to do so after initially only reading the last two pages earlier today after the latter gained my attention. Unless you've changed tack then accusing anyone else of being uncharitable in conversations with others you've no ground to do so given your own track record here.

If you had read it then you would have realized that I had already admitted that several times, and TH had also pointed it out quite a few.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you had read it then you would have realized that I had already admitted that several times, and TH had also pointed it out quite a few.

If that were true you wouldn't have been persisting with this insistent attack on TH via 'method' of approach with atheists. If that were true he wouldn't have as many atheists etc who respect his debate even through disagreement. It's not going to work or be palatable with everyone but there's hardly any pleasing everybody anyway and I've rarely seen the guy be insulting to folk. Have you? You're like a dog with a bone with this for some reason and why I've no idea, aside from a suspected personal investment.

 

[zippy2006]

If that were true you wouldn't have been persisting with this insistent attack on TH via 'method' of approach with atheists. If that were true he wouldn't have as many atheists etc who respect his debate even through disagreement. It's not going to work or be palatable with everyone but there's hardly any pleasing everybody anyway and I've rarely seen the guy be insulting to folk. Have you? You're like a dog with a bone with this for some reason and why I've no idea, aside from a suspected personal investment.

what makes you think i should not rebuke a fault i also struggle with?

 

[Arthur Brain]

what makes you think i should not rebuke a fault i also struggle with?

Nothing, except the fault you're accusing another of is hardly set else you're undermining their honesty in disagreement. As I've said I don't agree with TH on a manner of things but his method and approach scarcely warrants your 'rebuke' to begin with IMO. Do you honestly think he's so arrogant and full of pride as to not concede fault if you could show it?

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing, except the fault you're accusing another of is hardly set else you're undermining their honesty in disagreement. As I've said I don't agree with TH on a manner of things but his method and approach scarcely warrants your 'rebuke' to begin with IMO. Do you honestly think he's so arrogant and full of pride as to not concede fault if you could show it?

hmm? he has conceded fault, which is why our exchange was essetially over before you resurrected it. due to that fact, the derailing factor, the fact that i now only have a kindle to respond wth, and the fact that your inquiries have been answered in past posts, this will be my last response to you here. pm me if you have any more questions :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

hmm? he has conceded fault, which is why our exchange was essetially over before you resurrected it. due to that fact, the derailing factor, the fact that i now only have a kindle to respond wth, and the fact that your inquiries have been answered in past posts, this will be my last response to you here. pm me if you have any more questions :e4e:

Well, he hasn't conceded to the fault you accuse him of, far from it in fact, and it was you who decided the exchange was 'over' without even awaiting his response to it much less addressing most of his latter, so you can hardly blame me for 'resurrecting' that which was already there. If my inquiries were 'answered' then they were sorely lacking in substance dude else I'd have acknowledged such.

As you will though.

:e4e:

 

[Refractive]

I've been off of work and away from the forum for a couple days, and I just caught up on the discussion. I'll be posting a longer response late tonight, particularly regarding some statements and questions zippy and refractive made.

Maybe tomorrow you'll be able to get a word in edgewise.

 

[reasonator]

One of the atheist's favorite tactics, among many, is to accuse a Christian of being uncharitable or rude. They will do it with pretty much no provocation or great provocation. They, themselves, of course, do what they can to be first provocateur. This pattern is replicated perfectly ITT. It's like a textbook example.

I have no doubt this is true of some, or even many, atheists who take time to post on a theology forum. However, it is not my aim to be provocative or to be a provocateur. I recognize that simply presenting non-religious positions in a theology forum will be provocative to some posters by definition. But, my aim is discussion. I'm no troll, and I'm not sitting back in my chair with a cat in my lap concocting devious plans of how to rile people.

BTW - one of the other more common tactics is to claim you are either: not an atheist but an agnostic interested in any "proofs" of faith or a "fallen away" former Christian who might just be returned to the fold if only someone could explain away their doubts.

I'm not looking for anyone to get me back into the fold, but I will give as honest and open hearing to any arguments or ideas anyone wants to present. I believe in giving people the respect of listening to their arguments and positions. And I can promise I won't toss them out without giving them an honest listen. But again, my aim is not to be won over any more than your aim in posting is to be convinced of non-belief.

These tactics are designed to manipulate the theists into the atheist's favorite game: "Frustrate and Control the Theists and Show Them Up for the Ignorant Fools They Are." Note that early in his response s the OP brought up one of the doubt questions to get right into the game.

That's not my game. I presented a fairly simple statement: I once was believer with seminary training, I no longer am a believer, and nice to meet everyone. There was no game intended in that.

This OP, like many, entered the forums with a speech; he told us a story.

Which was the point of an introduction thread to a forum, I thought.

I did the same thing, BTW, for a specific reason and I got just the responses I wanted.

I'm unsure what you mean by this, or what response you got that you were hoping to get.

So, what was the purpose of the OP's speech and what was he trying to elicit? Who does he want us to think he is? Do any of his responses support his self-identity?

I had thought my introduction to the forum was fairly clear. I only want you to think I am the way that I presented myself, because that is what I am. Again, I am not attempting to play a game, or bluff anybody.

I personally find everything about this poster suspicious:

I honestly don't know why, unless you have a built in suspicion because I don't share your beliefs. I'm not sure I've done anything to make you or anyone else doubt my veracity.

the timing of his arrival, the timing of his responses after his arrival, his speech, his additional tidbits of speechifying, his inability to account in any straightforward way for the facts he claims about himself and went to the trouble to include here.

What about the timing is odd, or the timing of my responses? What do you mean by inability to account for the facts I claim about myself?

This raises two points: 1. Do you automatically doubt everything that anyone tells you about their life, or is is just something about me? 2. I would love to account for any questions you have about my biography if I am able to, but at the same time the reason we all have handles on a message board is so that we can maintain some level of anonymity. I'm not shy about sharing personal information to people I know in real life, but I don't see the need to share a bunch of personal information with you to satisfy your doubts about who I am. I may change my mind if you insist on thinking that I am playing a game with you or trying to bluff you about my biography for some reason, but I'll have to give it some thought.

I can be wrong. I am, in fact, trying to verify that he is exactly what he says he is. So far, not having much luck. I believe TH has been doing the same thing. But I can think of little that would please him more than seeing Christians fighting over him.

Why would you spend so much time trying to verify what I say about myself? If someone tells me on a message forum some biographical detail about their lives, I am prone to believing them if it is somewhat mundane detail. If what they tell me is amazing, or somewhat to highly unlikely, then I may want further verification. But I don't think anything I've said about myself warrants the kind of doubt and background checking you are attempting.