"Having the indwelt Holy Spirit"

Originally posted by @fmf
Not courageous. Yes. There was also the supposed lack of integrity, honesty, boldness, honour, bravery, worth, inventiveness, creativity, smartness, praiseworthiness.

That's quite a long list for someone who claims he'd never attack anyone's character.

No wonder you reduced it to just the one word/character flaw for your retelling of it. And then you s ...[text shortened]... pect of it. You might do well, however, to ponder the disconnect I am drawing your attention to.

Do you think that you don't attack people's character?

Originally posted by @philokalia
I do recollect I implied that you were not courageous in another thread. I am sorry if that hurt you or made you stumble.

Lol.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you think that you don't attack people's character?

Well, I have called you a jerk many times because of your behaviour. That was about your character. And I have described Eladar as odious even though I have friends from his end of the political spectrum with whom I have no problem ~ so that's related to Eladar's character for sure.

What I don't really do is attack people's character purely on account of the nature of their beliefs as they describe them - which is what Philokalia did.

For instance, I have often described sonship's notion of "perfect morality" as being depraved and grotesque, or words to that effect, but I have never described sonship's character as depraved and grotesque.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, I have called you a jerk many times because of your behaviour. That was about your character. And I have described Eladar as odious even though I have friends from his end of the political spectrum with whom I have no problem ~ so that's related to Eladar's character for sure.

What I don't really do is attack people's character purely on account of t ...[text shortened]... words to that effect, but I have never described sonship's character as depraved and grotesque.

So for the record, you would be ok with it if someone called you a 'jerk' or 'psychologically abused' or 'mentally retarded' because of your behavior?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So for the record, you would be ok with it if someone called you a 'jerk' or 'psychologically abused' or 'mentally retarded' because of your behavior?

People should call things how they see them. I do.

Originally posted by @fmf
Not courageous. Yes. There was also the supposed lack of integrity, honesty, boldness, honour, bravery, worth, inventiveness, creativity, smartness, praiseworthiness.

That's quite a long list for someone who claims he'd never attack anyone's character.

No wonder you reduced it to just the one word/character flaw for your retelling of it. And then you s ...[text shortened]... pect of it. You might do well, however, to ponder the disconnect I am drawing your attention to.

I am very relieved to know that you think I am achieving such a meek and kind-spirited posting pattern that I would never, ever hut another's feelings. That really means it is safe for me to use these forums without having to worry about causing damage to other persons.

Let me clarify something, though: I described those traits as being applicable to a position, and potentially applicable to people who argue that position.

Let me further clarify something...

There was no content left in the debate! How could I have run away? Am I literally supposed to stay and play semantical patty kake all day?

Originally posted by @fmf
People should call things how they see them. I do.

That's rich coming from the guy that just seemed to complain about Philokalia calling things as he sees them.

Originally posted by @philokalia
There was no content left in the debate! How could I have run away? Am I literally supposed to stay and play semantical patty kake all day?

You made some rather daft personal remarks and completely sidestepped the content that triggered those remarks. For you to simply compare me to a "soulless bugman", like Alex Jones does, was not addressing the content of what I posted at all.

Originally posted by @fmf
You made some rather daft personal remarks and completely sidestepped the content that triggered those remarks. For you to simply compare me to a "soulless bugman", like Alex Jones does, was not addressing the content of what I posted at all.

If that is how he saw things, was he or was he not allowed to call it that way?

Originally posted by @fmf
You made some rather daft personal remarks and completely sidestepped the content that triggered those remarks. For you to simply compare me to a "soulless bugman", like Alex Jones does, was not addressing the content of what I posted at all.

Do you want to discuss it further? Honestly, if you sent me a PM, I'd be happy to help you out.

Or, you could bring up what point you thought that you were making that I was not adequately addressing.

I seem to recollect you were basically saying

"Oh yeah, I believe in "spirit" and by Spirit I mean the human psyche," and I was saying,

"Come on, man, you can be a real man atheist and tell us you don't believe in spirits!"

But you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wanted to say spirit.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That's rich coming from the guy that just seemed to complain about Philokalia calling things as he sees them.

He has the right to attack my character if he wants to, but he needs to be called out when he later claims - elsewhere - that he would never attack anyone's character.

He also needs to be called out if he later he implies that the attack on someone's character was him engaging them in debate, when it was not ~ indeed it was arguably the complete opposite.

That is what is going on here. Can you not discern that from what people are saying?

Originally posted by @philokalia
I seem to recollect you were basically saying

"Oh yeah, I believe in "spirit" and by Spirit I mean the human psyche," and I was saying,

"Come on, man, you can be a real man atheist and tell us you don't believe in spirits!"

Ah, so. You didn't understand the stance I take. No wonder you disappeared in a cloud of deflecting words.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If that is how he saw things, was he or was he not allowed to call it that way?

Did you read this post? : 'People should call things how they see them. I do.'

Originally posted by @fmf
He has the right to attack my character if he wants to, but he needs to be called out when he later claims - elsewhere - that he would never attack anyone's character.

He also needs to be called out if he later he implies that the attack on someone's character was him engaging them in debate, when it was not ~ indeed it was arguably the complete opposite.

That is what is going on here. Can you not discern that from what people are saying?

If he does not see that what he said is attacking your character, he should call it as he sees it, no?

Originally posted by @fmf
Ah, so. You didn't understand the stance I take. No wonder you disappeared in a cloud of deflecting words.

You're offiical stance on most things is this extremely subtle, simple statement buried int he midst of a 1,000 questions you are throwing out and then when someone doesn't perfectly understand the full intent of a single statement you are like

"Ah ha, you failed to understand,"

and instead of offering an explanation and having an actual debate, you end the topic.

You might understand, then, why you would hear a criticism like...

This is not courageous, honest, or genuine.

But, of course, these words can only describe the nature of this argument tactic. I'd never dare say anything like that about a person I had never met before, and even if I had met such a person, I would do my best to not hurt their fweelings.