5 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: "How is it that I hurt you because I didn't support you in defending the sanctity of life? Why didn't Bbarr hurt you , or rwingett or countless others."
How is it that I hurt you because I didn't support you in defending the sanctity of life? Why didn't Bbarr hurt you , or rwingett or countless others. You wanted my opinion and I gave it to you. I don't understand how that "hurts ...[text shortened]... the eyes of God, to answer your question as to who the hell I am.
You present yourself as a reverend, supposedly a man of God. But you do not defend God's interests.
Kirk: " There are many things "laid out " in the Bible. Does not sanctity of life include care for the poor. I will bet there are more biblical references to this than there are to abortion in much the same way that there are more references to lying than there are about homosexuality. "
... meaning what ?
Kirk: "This , however, seems to be lost on the comic book theologicans of RHP."
This sentence, the way you call them, "comic book theologians of RHP" shows your true attitude towards these debaters, which you try to conceal. It's an attitude of contempt and disdain towards the persons involved. You act as a bully in the schoolyard together with other "debaters" who share your contempt and disdain. Indeed, as someone wrote in a post, they are easy targets, easy victims. You act like a schoolyard bully who pretends to "teach" the victims a well meant lesson. I do not expect such behaviour by someone who calls himself a reverend. You have participated in this kind of behaviour in a structural way in the past. I only have to mention the term "Wolfpack" of which you were such a proud member. Now the whole thing seems to start all over again.I told you, you should be ashamed of yourself. If Brother Edwin can understand what is happening, then why can't you, Kirk ? I expect from a reverend to speak out against bullying behaviour, but you Kirk, chose to participate in it, in the past and in the present. Your actions make me angry and believe me I have some words in mind that perfectly apply to you, but I will not write them down.
Again the atmosphere on the forums is polluted by debaters like you, stimulated by the usual crowd, among whom Dr. Scribbles, the "banned" Cribs.
Sometimes I get the impression you are not a reverend at all, because it is written that you recognise the tree by its fruits. I'm sorry to say reverend, but your fruits that you present us here on these forums, are rotten and stink.
With all due respect, Ivanhoe, I am proud of my "fruits." I started a thread on dificult Bible passages and I must say that I was somewhat moved and touched by the level of interest from people that would never step foot in a religious discussion. I invite you to revisit that thread and witness my "bullying" tactics and then compare it to some of the other theologicans that you love to defend.
But I will stop and invite others to give me some feedback as you may be correct in your assessment of me, and I may be out of touch with the reality that you have presented. I thank you for sharing your truth.
Originally posted by kirksey957
With all due respect, Ivanhoe, I am proud of my "fruits." I started a thread on dificult Bible passages and I must say that I was somewhat moved and touched by the level of interest from people that would never step foot in a religious discussion. I invite you to revisit that thread and witness my "bullying" tactics and then compare it to some of th ...[text shortened]... be out of touch with the reality that you have presented. I thank you for sharing your truth.
Kirk,
As you well know I was not referring to your Bible passage thread.
Neither am I defending any theological or religious stances by the debaters you condescendingly refer to as "theologians".
As usual you dodge the issue I have presented to you, this time by referring to other threads and issues, inviting me to take a look at your "fruits" you have grown there and by inviting others to "give you some feedback". Me thinks you had enough feedback in the past.
...... and you yet again flee the situation by very formally thanking me for sharing "my" truth, as if the truth as such doesn't exist.
..... and that was the subject of one of my questions which you chose to dodge.
Sometimes I wonder what you are doing on a Debates Forum ... Oh yeah .... "making the tent bigger" .... whatever that means. I don't know what it means, because you never answered questions about this statement's meaning either.
We will undoubtedly meet again Kirk.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's hard not to focus on the one or two people when they're making 90% of the pro-religion posts, and bringing religion into non-religious threads.
One of the problems is that certain people focus too much on one or two people. There are lots and lots of other debaters on the site.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou've crossed the line here, Ivanhoe. While you two may
You present yourself as a reverend, supposedly a man of God. But you do not defend God's interests.
...
Sometimes I get the impression you are not a reverend at all, because it is written that you recognise the tree by its fruits. I'm sorry to say reverend, but your fruits that you present us here on these forums, are rotten and stink.
disagree about what 'Sanctity of Life' entails or 'what God
intended,' but your post here is just nasty; it's every bit of
spiteful and aggressive as anything you accuse the WolfPack
of doing.
I find it outrageous that you could claim to know what God
intends. Whenever you have presented views about the
Sanctity of Life, you've done so in axiomatic fashion. While
I don't deny your right to do so, I also do not deny the right
for others to make the opposite axiomatic claims. You take
the latter as a personal affront and have never been able to
transcend this. Your attack on Kirk as not being a dedicated
man of God is testimony to this, to the degree to which your
anger about this issue knows no bounds.
You will never be able to convince anyone that your points
are concordant with those of God if the manner in which you
express them is riddled with anger and spite. Indeed, as a
Christian, you are called to respond to another's anger with
love, another's spite with compassion. You often fail to recall
this, and so, convince no one of your knowledge of God.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
You've crossed the line here, Ivanhoe. While you two may
disagree about what 'Sanctity of Life' entails or 'what God
intended,' but your post here is just nasty; it's every bit of
spiteful and aggressive as anything you accuse the WolfPack
of doing.
I find it outrageous that you could claim to know what God
intends. Whenever you have presente ...[text shortened]... n. You often fail to recall
this, and so, convince no one of your knowledge of God.
Nemesio
Stop waving your arms like that .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhether you were referring to my Bible passage or not is not the point. I was referring to it because it was a good thread. Of course I will never get any recognition from you simply because I started it.
Kirk,
As you well know I was not referring to your Bible passage thread.
Neither am I defending any theological or religious stances by the debaters you condescendingly refer to as "theologians".
As usual you dodge the issue I have presented to you, this time by referring to other threads and issues, inviting me to take a look at your "fruits ...[text shortened]... ed questions about this statement's meaning either.
We will undoubtedly meet again Kirk.
In terms of what "making the tent bigger" means, it simply means that I am trying to be more inclusive by inviting people to share their personal story instead of handed down dogma.
Now I have a question for you. Why are you angry at DoctorScribbles? I was under the impression that you welcomed him with open arms. Am I missing something?
Originally posted by kirksey957K-dawg,I bet all my money that he will let this slide away,just like rapalla did when I asked him the same question!
Now I have a question for you. Why are you angry at DoctorScribbles? I was under the impression that you welcomed him with open arms. Am I missing something?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not sure I understand your position on this, you enjoy the
I stopped worrying about it and I started enjoying it ....... 😉
personal insult give and take? Don't you think that gets in the
way of real conversation? I know there are some here that only
know how to insult, avoiding that for more than one or two posts
must hurt their brains so they take to a lower level, least they
have to defend themsleves, least they have to say they were
wrong or sorry. It seems counter productive to my way of
thinking anyway, if anyone really wanted to get at the core of
someone else's views on any given matter.
Kelly
Originally posted by ivanhoeNegative debates about RHP members do not belong on the RHP forums. We are a chess community and we should all get along without opening threads to bash, insult, intimidate and belittle other RHP members.
Kirk has dodged and fled many discussions, he simply disappears for a while. It's a fact and it still bothers me ....
... but he has a very big mouth when it comes to RBHILL & friends, especially since he knows he is being covered by his "Forum Wars" friends .... the coward.
3 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: "Whether you were referring to my Bible passage or not is not the point. "
Whether you were referring to my Bible passage or not is not the point. I was referring to it because it was a good thread. Of course I will never get any recognition from you simply because I started it.
In terms of what "making the ...[text shortened]... ion that you welcomed him with open arms. Am I missing something?
Oh yes, it is, but you want to steer away the attention from my criticism about your supporting and participating in the bullying of a number of RHP members, who are easy targets. I'm sure you have many positive sides, but that was not the issue I raised. It seems the Wolfpack has awoken again. Their and yours usual playing ground, Forum Wars, their and your gossip site about other RHP members, must have become boring again.
Kirk: " Am I missing something"
Yes, you are indeed missing something, Kirk. Dr.Scribbles' comments towards and about me are not exactly friendly. Besides he is again stirring the pot to cause trouble. One example was asking RBHILL to reactivate his Bible study posts. Dr.Scribbles (=Cribs) knows that this causes a lot of strife among many RHP members, especially his own Forum Warriors jumped on it like flies on the pot. Dr. Scribbles (=Cribs) must not expect me to remain friendly to him if he starts stirring the pot again and playing his annoying games, now under the cover of a new and different persona.
Kirk: "In terms of what "making the tent bigger" means, it simply means that I am trying to be more inclusive by inviting people to share their personal story instead of handed down dogma."
Maybe you can open a thread on this. The apparent opposition and apparent incompatibility in your statement between "personal story" and "handed down dogma" are interesting and can serve as an entrance to get to know more about your own personal religious beliefs, which you are spreading as a reverend/pastor and a preacher. The differences for instances in your thinking between a social worker and a Christian pastor or reverend could be highlighted and become more clear to us all if you would be willing to open such a thread, maybe called: "Making the tent bigger ...... and what it exactly means".