30 Nov '18 05:24>
@fmf saidWhy should I ask him?
Why don't you ask him? He has been stonewalling this kind of thing for years and years.
I am curious, why does the question of his belief on this tickle you so much?
@fmf saidWhy should I ask him?
Why don't you ask him? He has been stonewalling this kind of thing for years and years.
@philokalia saidYou also thought Romans1009 was one of the best posters ~ in fact, THE best poster here out of those who posted high volume. Thanks for your evaluations. Very interesting.
Sonship is one of the best posters here, and he does it at a very high volume while being attacked & nit picked.
@philokalia saidIt's a debate and discussion forum. Two things, among many other things, that I find interesting are: [1] the effect that religiosity can have on a person's integrity in terms of intellectual and interpersonal behaviour, and [2] people who propagate morally incoherent creeds because of their superstitious nature [i.e. their belief in supernatural causality]. These things come together in discussions about this belief about torture and ideology and morality and - what often seems to me to be - unprincipled groupism.
I am curious, why does the question of his belief on this tickle you so much?
@fmf saidYou might actually want to consider that people do not want to engage with those who think they are just going effort trolls.
It's a debate and discussion forum. Two things, among many other things, that I find interesting are: [1] the effect that religiosity can have on a person's integrity in terms of intellectual and interpersonal behaviour, and [2] people who propagate morally incoherent creeds because of their superstitious nature [i.e. their belief in supernatural causality]. These things come tog ...[text shortened]... about torture and ideology and morality and - what often seems to me to be - unprincipled groupism.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
@philokalia saidPeople can engage with whoever they want. It's also your prerogative to call people "trolls" if you so wish. One of the biggest, creepiest "trolls" this community has ever seen was Romans1009. I said so at the time. Go ahead: engage whoever you want and call people "trolls". It's the internet.
You might actually want to consider that people do not want to engage with those who think they are just going effort trolls.
@philokalia saidYou're right, maybe I should ignore other people's superstitious "muck" and ideologies sometimes. I am more active at certain times; less so at others. There are people I choose to not interact with too.
Thus, when people choose to not interact with someone in a certain way it is not actually a dubious move meant to protect their ideology but rather just a choice to not get bogged down in another person's muck.
@philokalia saidTheir silence or evasiveness or reluctance - these things are all part of the discourse. People can make of it what they want. People can make what they want of my stances and what I say and don't say.
Sometimes a person chooses to be standoffish or disengages not because the arguments are problematic but because the soruce of the arguments cannot be trusted to act in good faith.
@philokalia saidchaney3 is a "troll" when he's drunk. Romans1009 was a "troll" 90% of the time. Duchess64 is a "troll", I reckon. I agree that nobody should be subjected to those kinds of posters. Ah yes, but you rated Romans1009 as the best poster on the Spirituality Forum. I suppose one community's "troll", is another man's "best poster". But I agree in principle, no one should be subjected to "trolls".
No one should be subjected to trolls.
@suzianne saidYou’re hiding behind silly response and I will prove it. Let me ask you the same question and see if you know, from sonship’s replies, what his position is.
Yet again, even more dodging the answer.
@secondson saidSame question to you then.
@Suzianne
"Dodging the answer". Why didn't I think of that? 😉
@philokalia saidThe statement of belief in sonship’s chirch regarding the qualification for salvation is absolutely unequivocal. It is written in the OP. If you are suggesting that the statement doesn’t mean what is written then you need to show very clearly how.
Not at all.
The small disagreement is whether or not Sonship believes such a thing needs to be in a statement of Faith for the Church, not whether or not it is relevant to personal salvation.
A statement of Faith does not have to literally be a manifesto on the Trinity, and what the relevance is...
... And believing that God's mercy is generally extended to non-Tr ...[text shortened]... at he needs to find a new church, or that he is breaking some big thing with his church.
Do you?
@philokalia saidBut you said Romans1009 was one of the best posters here and he was banned for being a creepy stalker who posted about children getting drunk and having sexual liaisons in pubs.
I do not understand what is debilitating.
Sonship is one of the best posters here, and he does it at a very high volume while being attacked & nit picked. I have no idea how he does it because, even now, we are seeing the 'torture' card pulled out -- a trope that has been red hot in this forum for months, and largely one of the reasons why my volume cut down.