Do Not Eat Lying Threads Christians

SisyphusRide

akushla99

SisyphusRide
reply to post by akushla99

 

it's not necessarily preaching... it is a topic of discussion and we're all equals here right?

I would love to have a long discussion with the OP posted, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone would want to... they should just avoid it.

we get anti-theistic topic all the time, and atheism preaches here too...

it's the religion, faith and theology section for Truth's sake!

theology is directly associated with Christians and the study of their religion.

...boom boom tiss

What part of the OP did you miss? THERE IS TO BE NO DISCUSSION.

So...what is this thread...if there is no discussion?

Å99

are you theistic or more specifically a Christian theologian?

maybe you could step back because it is getting difficult for me to navigate this thread... a discussion was never left to materialize before the anti-theism flood came.

I believe we are discussing the NON-DISCUSSION clause of the OP...which would seem to be contrary to the spirit of discussion...what exactly do you see in the OP that needs to be discussed?...and you would do well to not tell me what to do, especially when a very simple question cannot be answered...

Å99

reply to post by masqua

I propose a new section mr Lawgiver... called "Atheism"

because it's not a religion, faith or theology, although I am still trying to figure that out exactly.

reply to post by akushla99


I don't see it. Going all out about the Lord of Hosts is no different than deifying the tears dropping off Obama's cheeks, imho. You can always put in a complaint, cuz I'm not going to do anything.

As for no discussion, we're into three pages already.

akushla99
I believe we are discussing the NON-DISCUSSION clause of the OP...which would seem to be contrary to the spirit of discussion...what exactly do you see in the OP that needs to be discussed?.

You are partly misrepresenting the OP.
Nothing in the OP says that the OP itself may not be discussed (the message is to stay away from other threads).
And I managed to have a discussion with the author on that issue, telling him that his view was mistaken.
That shows that discussion on this thread is possible. I've done it.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by masqua

 

I propose a new section mr Lawgiver... called "Atheism"

because it's not a religion, faith or theology, although I am still trying to figure that out exactly.

...and I propose (but it would be the hieght of assumption to assume that generally posters are theists, or not) a new section called Christianity, Christianity and Christianity...or, you could go to a website wholly dedicated to it...and NOT discuss, but instead hi-five and preach to the converted...

Å99

akushla99

SisyphusRide
reply to post by masqua

 

I propose a new section mr Lawgiver... called "Atheism"

because it's not a religion, faith or theology, although I am still trying to figure that out exactly.

...and I propose (but it would be the hieght of assumption to assume that generally posters are theists, or not) a new section called Christianity, Christianity and Christianity...or, you could go to a website wholly dedicated to it...and NOT discuss, but instead hi-five and preach to the converted...

Å99

I could dissect this... tear it up and burn it to the ground but I won't, there's no use.

maybe they could just tag atheism to the end of the section title then? so nobody feels left out...

masqua
reply to post by akushla99

 

I don't see it. Going all out about the Lord of Hosts is no different than deifying the tears dropping off Obama's cheeks, imho. You can always put in a complaint, cuz I'm not going to do anything.

As for no discussion, we're into three pages already.

edit on 7/12/13 by masqua because: (no reason given)

Of course you're not seeing it, and if I thought in all reality that putting in a complaint would achieve anything, I would have long ago...and I never asked you to do anything...

Correct! We are three pages into a discussion about what the OP is about, that is not meant to be discussed...this is what the OP says...

Å99

SisyphusRide

akushla99

SisyphusRide
reply to post by masqua

 

I propose a new section mr Lawgiver... called "Atheism"

because it's not a religion, faith or theology, although I am still trying to figure that out exactly.

...and I propose (but it would be the hieght of assumption to assume that generally posters are theists, or not) a new section called Christianity, Christianity and Christianity...or, you could go to a website wholly dedicated to it...and NOT discuss, but instead hi-five and preach to the converted...

Å99

I could dissect this... tear it up and burn it to the ground but I won't, there's no use.

maybe they could just tag atheism to the end of the section title then? so nobody feels left out...

...because you feel like the OP hasn't done a good enough job of isolating the topic heading already?...and by dent of content, has not left anyone out of an OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION?

Å99

ETA: it would be silly to assume who was an athiest and who not...so this line of argument is moot and ridiculous...

reply to post by akushla99

there is a discussion here to be had about (more specifically) Christians defending themselves in the face of adversary.

akushla99
ETA: it would be silly to assume who was an athiest and who not...so this line of argument is moot and ridiculous...

this can be reversed too and applied to anyone.

PS; there's that word again "moot"

I give images to words... and t is not easy for people to circumvent my detection.

...boom boom tiss

SisyphusRide
reply to post by akushla99

 

there is a discussion here to be had about (more specifically) Christians defending themselves in the face of adversary.

Do you mean, the adversary that you have set yourself up against?...like, running onto a freeway, and crying that cars are glancing you?

Å99

SisyphusRide

akushla99
ETA: it would be silly to assume who was an athiest and who not...so this line of argument is moot and ridiculous...

this can be reversed too and applied to anyone.

PS; there's that word again "moot"

I give images to words... and t is not easy for people to circumvent my detection.

...boom boom tiss

...of course it can, it's an open forum discussion board!

Å99

ETA: your 'detection' is waaay off then my friend...better get that seen to...

reply to post by akushla99


ya huh

SisyphusRide
reply to post by akushla99

 

ya huh

Smug isn't really cool...

Why circumvent any answer you might give to very simple questions? I'd say that was avoidance...Which goes quite well with non-discussion...The actual stated premise of the OP.

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


I can't tell what band is playing either before I get in the door to the club, nor can I tell if it is a cover band playing a tune in which the music is similar but just a little off...

I shouldn't have listened to all that Heavy Metal when I was a youngan.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by akushla99

 

I can't tell what band is playing either before I get in the door to the club, nor can I tell if it is a cover band playing a tune in which the music is similar but just a little off...

I shouldn't have listened to all that Heavy Metal when I was a youngan.

What is this OP non-discussion about? Very simple question...because you (in particular) seem to knoe...the 'either' is another assumption you would do well to refrain from...it's presumptive and haughty...

Å99

"Brothers and sisters in Christ stay away from the threads on this website which feed lies and may be designated for you to lose your faith. Do not respond to those threads which speak lies contrary to the Lord's truth. Neither feed the flesh of those who wish to argue with you and stir up the flesh by questioning the truth that truly is from the Lord."

In a strange twist of confused logic, it appears this thread falls into the category mentioned in the stated OP's intent...merely for being broached on an open discussion forum board, by the OP...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

Nonsense. The OP refers to threads started for the purpose of attacking the faith.
Patently he does not regard his own thread as one of those, so your ingenious argument is disingenuous.

DISRAELI
reply to post by akushla99

 

Nonsense. The OP refers to threads started for the purpose of attacking the faith.
Patently he does not regard his own thread as one of those, so your ingenious argument is disingenuous.

Fine! Let's all DISCUSS it!

...but wait, OP says NOT to discuss it!

How disingenuous do you think this is?

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

As I've already pointed it, he NEVER, at any point in the OP, says that we should not discuss the OP.
In fact (as I've already pointed out, again) I've already had my own discussion with him on this thread criticising his view.