You're not a good Christian...

[David_B]

Hmmm. I find it more than a little amusing that you first claim:

you do not have the personal intergrity to first bring whatever problems you have with me to my attention

And then, just a few lines down in the very same message, you admit that I had, in fact, brought them to your attention in previous discussions. So then what, exactly, are you so upset about? Should I start every discussion by repeating, in a message directed to you, of course, my opinions about the way you argue? You have just contradicted yourself and yet you are still upset about something that, by your own words, you should not be upset about. What more can I say?

And by the way, if you didn’t care for my language in the last post, let me remind you that it was you that strongly implied that insulting people is okay under the guise of “sharing opinions”

Really? Where did I imply that? I described your behavior in various debates we’ve both been involved in. I certainly didn’t sling around profanities and insults. I didn’t call you a “jerk” or an “@$$#ole.” Was the description I gave of you complimentary? Not at all. Did it somehow imply that slinging insults like you have done is ok? Again, not at all.

[Jodi]

DAVID now says:

Heck, I don’t think I’ve even flamed Jodi here, though she may disagree (I guess it depends on what you think of as a flame – where I come from, what I said to and about Jodi would not qualify.

Can’t we at least strive for some intellectual honesty? DAVID said:

Once she makes up her mind about something, you can pretty much forget about explaining anything to her. No matter what you say, she will sit there and pound away at the keyboard without comprehension – and then blame you for failing to explain yourself.

Now, that pretty strongly implies that I refuse to listen to reason regardless of the merit of the argument presented, and flat-out says that I am “without comprehension.” Regardless of what “spin” he may try to put on it now, that’s a flame in anyone’s world.

[David_B]

Incidentally, lest anybody think I’m ignoring your claim regarding when I have called you on ignoring points made in previous discussions (I forgot to include it in the above message) – In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them. There may have been others; I don’t remember every single discussion we’ve had here. But after a while, it gets real old. In several cases, I just stopped replying to you because it was about as effective as talking to a wall. Others have done likewise.

[David_B]

Sorry, Jodi, but that’s not a flame where I come from. As I said, it’s not very nice, but I don’t consider it a flame either; nor would most of the folks on FidoNet where I spent many years. A flame is something like, I dunno, calling somebody a jerk or an @$$#ole or some other sort of direct insult like that. But, like I said, your mileage may vary. Obviously, you took it as a flame. I’m not going to apologize for it because I still stand by it as being true. But I was not intent on “flaming” you when I said it – just making a snide remark describing the likelihood of you listening to anybody who took Satan’s side of this discussion, based on my previous experiences with you.

[Jodi]

DAVID now says:

And then, just a few lines down in the very same message, you admit that I had, in fact, brought them to your attention in previous discussions. So then what, exactly, are you so upset about?

I am upset that you chose to post derrogatory comments about me but did not have the guts/integrity to post them to me. Don’t you get it? If I have a problem with someone I bring it up with them, not with others under the lame excuse they’re sure to hear about it/read about too.

I am further upset that you are now apparently talking about exchanges or debates we’ve had in the past when if you had a problem with the substance – substance, not style – you should have brought it to my attention then. As far as style is concerned, who made you the Joan Rivers of the message board, anyway? Very few other people seem to have any trouble comprehending me. I think that you recognize that you haven’t succeeded in making me agree with you on a number of subjects, and for some reason that pisses you off. I also think you recognize that I don’t take the “word of David” as gospel on anything (as in the Jews for Jesus thread), and that pisses you off as well.

I start every discussion by repeating, in a message directed to you, of course, my opinions about the way you argue?

I don’t give two pins what your opinion is about “the way that I argue;” if I wanted an evaluation of my rhetorical style, I would request one. It seems to me far more productive to take issue with what I post then with how I post it – especially since I might conceivably listen to you on the former (or would have until today) but am guaranteed not to listen to you on the latter. But you had nothing of substance to say about my post in this instance; you just leapt in with a gratuitously insulting post that – for the 900th time – you lacked the courage to even direct to me, although I was clearly the subject of it.

You have just contradicted yourself and yet you are still upset about something that, by your own words, you should not be upset about. What more can I say?

You can point out – in short, clear sentences since you doubt my powers of comprehension – where I contradicted myself.

[quote}Really? Where did I imply that?[/quote]

Must I quote you? Well, okay:

“You should know by now that I don’t wait for people to ask for my opinions. That’s why we’re all here – to discuss our opinions. If you don’t like my opinion of you, well, as an attorney friend of mine says: “Too bad, so sad.””

I described your behavior in various debates we’ve both been involved in. I certainly didn’t sling around profanities and insults. I didn’t call you a “jerk” or an “@$$#ole.” Was the description I gave of you complimentary? Not at all. Did it somehow imply that slinging insults like you have done is ok? Again, not at all.

Did it foster the debate? Not at all. What it intend to do anything but make me mad? Not at all. What it brought to my attention instead of being directed at third persons? Not at all. Did it connstitute “slinging insults around”? Sure it did.

In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them.

Bushwa. Let’s see a cite for this.

There may have been others; I don’t remember every single discussion we’ve had here.

That’s because you’re basically making it up.

In several cases, I just stopped replying to you because it was about as effective as talking to a wall.

In several cases, you stopped replying because you could not convince me that you were right, and it was more comfortable to tell yourself that I just didn’t get it rather than admit that someone might simply disagree with you and the conclusions you’ve reached.

Others have done likewise.

Who? Seriously. If you’re going to present this a problem perceived by wide segments of the message board, I’d like names. I’ve disagreed with Phil repeatedly on religion (though agreed with him in other areas); I’ve now managed to tangle with Satan; and then there’s you. If I’ve left anyone off of your “others” list, I’d like to know who it is.

[Jodi]

That wasn’t a flame, huh? Well, I did flame you, just so we’re clear on that, and I to stand behind every word I said because it’s “basically true.”

[Gaudere]

Now, David, I don’t know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner. This is not what Kant would do.
(No offense intended, PM)

[David_B]

Jodih said:

I am upset that you chose to post derrogatory comments about me but did not have the guts/integrity to post them to me. Don’t you get it?

Don’t you get it? You have already admitted that I did post similar things to you in previous threads. So your complaint is invalid. Case dismissed.

You can point out – in short, clear sentences since you doubt my powers of comprehension – where I contradicted myself.

Already did. First you claimed you were upset because I had talked about you instead of to you first. Then you admitted that I had brought these things up before to you. If I brought them up before to you, then you do not now have a basis to claim that I brought them up about you without bringing them up to you. Get it?

Very few other people seem to have any trouble comprehending me.

I don’t have trouble comprehending you, Jodi. Again you bring up something as if that were the topic, but it isn’t. I have very clearly described what, exactly, I have a problem about regarding the way you act.

I think that you recognize that you haven’t succeeded in making me agree with you on a number of subjects, and for some reason that pisses you off.

You can think that all you want – you’ll still be wrong. As I have said several times (per your usual pattern, you ignored those), I can and have disagreed with many people on many subjects here, and I’m perfectly ok with them. It’s not the fact that you disagree, it’s the way you go about it. The way you ignore things. The overall way you argue. Need I repeat it again?

I also think you recognize that I don’t take the “word of David” as gospel on anything (as in the Jews for Jesus thread), and that pisses you off as well.

I don’t expect people to take my word as gospel. Hell, I spend much of my free time encouraging people to think critically and be skeptical! I don’t mind being questioned – I expect it. What I don’t expect is people to simply ignore what others say. In that particular thread, your questions were answered legitimately, validly, and correctly. You ignored those answers. Instead you just kept repeating that it didn’t make any sense to you and made some invalid assumptions. You want to disagree with me? Fine! You want to try to prove me wrong? Go for it! You want to ignore me and just insist that you’re right? I’m gonna call you on it.

It seems to me far more productive to take issue with what I post then with how I post it

Indeed it does. I’ve been there, done that. As I’ve noted, you tend to ignore things like that, alas. Then, when I point out that you ignore things, you complain that I’m taking issue with how you post.

I said:

In at least one case that I recall, I did repost things that you ignored. And as I recall, you continued to ignore them.

You replied:

Bushwa. Let’s see a cite for this.

Believe it or not, I have better things to do with my time than search back into the old threads – like sleep, right now. I’ll see what I can do, but no promises. I mean, you don’t care what I say anyway, so it seems like kind of a pointless exercise…

I noted that “Others have done likewise.” (given up on having discussions with you) You responded:

Who? Seriously. If you’re going to present this a problem perceived by wide segments of the message board, I’d like names. I’ve disagreed with Phil repeatedly on religion (though agreed with him in other areas); I’ve now managed to tangle with Satan; and then there’s you.

Phil was one of the others. I recall an early discussion involving several people who are no longer on the MB (one of the Great God Debates) who gave up on talking to you for similar reasons. I admit that I wasn’t following that portion of the debate as closely as I was following the part I was involved in, but I do recall they seemed to be making complaints that were very similar to the ones we’ve been discussing here. Of course, even if it’s just Phil and Satan, that still constitutes the “others” I mentioned. But then, you don’t care what any of us think anyway. < shrug >

[David_B]

In looking at some old messages (against my better judgment, instead of going to sleep), I found something interesting. In the “Is ‘In God We Trust’ Unconstitutional?” thread, I specifically pointed out to you on August 4:

I don’t like to be ignored – and that is what seems to often happen in some of these threads when you respond. We go over the same thing, I explain it, you ignore it, I re-explain it, you ignore it, etc. By the time I’ve gone thru this a few times, I feel in a bit of a patronizing mood, I’m afraid. I’m not saying this always happens with you, but it’s happened before and it’s happened in this thread. I’m sure you’ll blame me and say that I shouldn’t fault you because you disagree, but if it were simply disagreement, it would be different – and I don’t think that’s the case. So if you don’t think this is happening, fine. There is certainly no way I can change your mind. But I’m not going to continue to play into it here.

So, again, we see that I have said this to you before, so your complaint that I said it about you instead of to you is simply invalid.

I searched that thread because it was the one I thought I had reposted stuff for you at your request. However, in reading it, I see that I decided “it’s not worth it to go over the others again.” Even then, I was tired of repeating myself and being ignored (and I had repeated myself several times to you previous to that message). As I am going to go to bed now (presuming you haven’t posted another message while I’ve been posting this one), I will concede that on the one I remembered, I did not repost when you specifically asked me to do so. I did post the same things several other times, mind you, but that’s not what I said above and I recognize that.

[David_B]

Gaudere said:

Now, David, I don’t know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner.

What would a Secular Humanist manner be? Saying I don’t believe in Jodi’s existence?

Ok, now I really am going to bed. Goodnight, all. I don’t know if I’ll have time to tackle this again tomorrow (busy, busy day). I’ll, of course, be checking in but I have a busy weekend planned as well and don’t know if I’ll have time to post much. We’ll see.

[Pickman_s_Model]

Now, David, I don’t know if you are responding in a Secular Humanist manner. This is not what Kant would do.

(No offense intended, PM)

None taken, Gaudere.

[LH75]

friend manhattan,

 you asked:

Does there exist, or should there exist, a “Cosmos for Christians?” I’m talking about a big, multi-part miniseries hosted by theologists and scientists and whoever, with full hype, ads in TV Guide, subway posters, etc. There’s about a billion cable channels that would probably love to run/re-run such a thing.

a co-worker who is a pentecostal much like young adam loaned me some of his books on this very subject. (pseudo science that supports biblical arguments)

the subject that sticks in my mind is “christ and the cosmos” where the discussion is of the age of the universe.

the author states that although the speed of light is a constant, and the distance to stars 4 to 5 million light years is a mathmatical certainty, this does not prove that the light from these stars is 4 to 5 million years old, as the laws of physics and mathmatics would lead you to believe. an all powerful god is not bound by the laws of physics, and that this does not prove that the universe is older than 6,000 years.

[kaylasdad99]

Okay, everybody, David’s gone for maybe as long as three days. Now, don’t say anything about what you may or may not like about him while he’s away. We wouldn’t want him to accuse us of talking about him behind his back. OOOOPS! I said that behind his back! Wait. I’ll fix it.

Okay, David, you’re gone for maybe as long as three days. Now, we won’t say anything about what we may or may not like about you while **you’re/b] away. We wouldn’t want you to accuse us of talking about you behind your back.

Hey, hold on. Jodih, you’re the one who objects to that, aren’t you? Please note that I am assiduously avoiding the faux pas. More seriously, I will reserve personal judgment on how you “are” until I have been with the group long enough to absorb a representative sampling of your posts. I will say that with regard to matters of calm, reasoned debating styles, you have not acquitted yourself with distinction on this thread tonight. I will go on to acknowledge that you are not the only one of whom this statement could be made (these are my personal opinions, of course). I sincerely hope that in your next attempt at resolving to behave in accordance with what you have implied are the true tenets of your faith, you are somehow able to find the inspiration to make it last for more than four hours.

My three-year-old is clamoring for my attention right now, so I’m going to join her for the remainder of the evening. But I’m kicking myself for having taken the time to read all of today’s posts, when I have a perfectly good copy of The House at Pooh Corner just waiting for us.

---

Heck with this… I’m goin’ over and find out about Harry Potter bein’ the AntiChrist.

[system]

To get back to something Satan mentioned earlier,some folks believe that indeed,the earth is billions of years old.It’s been pretty much proven. But that God created humans roughly 6,000 years ago! Me,I don’t care when or how it all happened.I just believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected. Everything else is debated,but I’m not betting my life on it.

[Polycarp]

Abbie, the whole resurrection issue got discussed a short while ago at Resurrection. I’ve brought that thread back to the top to enable you to find and review it. Maybe you’ll have some cogent comments.

[David_B]

Orangecakes said:

To get back to something Satan mentioned earlier,some folks believe that indeed,the earth is billions of years old.It’s been pretty much proven. But that God created humans roughly 6,000 years ago!

Hmmm. Don’t think I’ve heard that one before – unless it’s a variant on old-earth creationist beliefs.

I have seen letters to the editor from people saying they represent the Bahai (I know there’s an apostrophe in there somewhere, but I don’t know where) faith indicating that they agree that evolution did happen – for all creatures except humans, who are special.

[manhattan]

longhair75, thanks for responding. What you saw is, unfortunately, the opposite of what I kind of hoped exists, which is a mass-audience-oriented work on real science by serious, scholarly Christians. You know, maybe a few chapters/episodes debunking claims that Christianity has stood in the way of scientific discovery, sections on reconciling Biblical stories with current theories such as evolution and Universe age, that sort of thing.

On further thinking, though, it may not be a good idea anyway. I think maybe attention spans have dropped even since the ‘70’s to the point where such a thing would not be seen.

Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Polycarp]

Manhattan, I’ve been taking your suggestions seriously. The majority of them do seem to involve serious money, which would require demonstrating to the religious leadership of my or another denomination that there is a real need for this sort of thing. (I’m convinced; but as a NYC-ite you are very clear on the distinction between culture there and in, to refer back to a post you put in the Pit, Topeka, Kansas.)

I apologize for not responding online before; I’d gotten a little depressed at seeing another good thread go downhill in a flame war or reasonable facsimile. (I originally typed “go to Hell” instead of “go downhill” but in view of the OP that might have been a bit tacky ;))

[manhattan]

Don’t worry about it, Poly. It’s only happenstance that I saw longhair’s post in the middle of everything else going on.

And yea, your point is part of what got me rethinking. Some well-intentioned person makes the thing. Then, if anybody even watches the thing, they’re caught between people like me, fascinated and impressed but (probably) not converted on the one side and people calling them heretics and boycotting advertisers on the other side. Pretty depressing way to make a living.

---

Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Jodi]

I am not going to take up any more time in this thread with my problem with David. The entire exchange belonged in the Pit, and that’s where I’m taking it. David, I’m sure you’ll be able to identify the thread pertaining to you.