"Only God's judgment is infallible..."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Wow FMF seems I may have touched a nerve with you. You seem upset. Could it be that you feel intimidated by Christians and if you can’t get enough satisfaction from bashing their religion you resort to personal insults? Does that make you feel better about yourself?

He doesn't seem upset you half-wit. He seems disdaining of you and your petty, silly attempts to pretend that you are having a discussion. Of your childish "I know you are but what am I" style of "debate". Grow up, for feck's sake.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Originally posted by @sonship
Again, you attempt to define legitimate discourse and participation in this forum as one feeling "comfortable" with perpetual, repetitious, monotonous, time wasting, compulsory, never ending, quarreling with you.

Like Grampy Bobby, sonship seems to feel that disagreement with his ideology and especially dissent ...[text shortened]... iapers" (credited to Grampy Bobby) or regurgitating his own classic "diseased minds" accusation.

You miss him, don't you.

Originally posted by @fmf
How on earth can I be "lying" when I say I believe you have a massive chip on your shoulder for the reasons I have given? Lying? Huh?

You mean you think I actually don’t believe what I say I believe, and that I am lying when I say that I do?

You believe I have a grudge of sorts based upon your vivid imagination and not based on me saying so.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
You miss him, don't you.

There many forum posters who have left the site who added value through providing contextual contrast and differentiated opinion.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
He doesn't seem upset you half-wit. He seems disdaining of you and your petty, silly attempts to pretend that you are having a discussion. Of your childish "I know you are but what am I" style of "debate". Grow up, for feck's sake.

FMF has a string of pet admirers here it seems. A lapdog and a cat. 😉

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
He doesn't seem upset you half-wit. He seems disdaining of you and your petty, silly attempts to pretend that you are having a discussion. Of your childish "I know you are but what am I" style of "debate". Grow up, for feck's sake.

Ridicule, mockery, belittling ... the really hefty intellectual tools of wannabe new atheists like yourself.

Originally posted by @fmf
Feel free to ignore my posts, sonship.

I do. As also I feel free to debunk you occasionally.

No permission asked of you.
No permission required from you.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Originally posted by @sonship
Again, you attempt to define legitimate discourse and participation in this forum as one feeling "comfortable" with perpetual, repetitious, monotonous, time wasting, compulsory, never ending, quarreling with you.

Like Grampy Bobby, sonship seems to feel that disagreement with his ideology and especially dissent ...[text shortened]... iapers" (credited to Grampy Bobby) or regurgitating his own classic "diseased minds" accusation.

Did you define "self-anointed" whatever yet or just go on to some other claptrap?

Is it that someone who has thought some biblical matters through carefully is "self-anointed" ?

If one is mostly lukewarm, foggy, confused, afraid to commit about a biblical concept he is therefore NOT "self anointed" ?

Where did you clarify why you say I am "self anointed" and what that is suppose to mean ?

Originally posted by @sonship
Did you define "self-anointed" whatever yet or just go on to some other claptrap?

Is it that someone who has thought some biblical matters through carefully is "self-anointed" ?

If one is mostly lukewarm, foggy, confused, afraid to commit about a biblical concept he is therefore NOT "self anointed" ?

Where did you clarify why you say I am "self anointed" and what that is suppose to mean ?

Self anointed as in presuming you are here to teach the forum as evidence by your “in this thread I shall talk about xyz” type of OPs, generally followed by a further 6 posts of you waffling on usually regurgitating something you have picked up from other minister, and you setting yourself up as a “good Christian to follow”.

That kind of self anointed.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Self anointed as in presuming you are here to teach the forum as evidence by your “in this thread I shall talk about xyz” type of OPs, followed by 6 posts of you waffling on usually regurgitating something you pick up from other minister, and you setting yourself up as a “good Christian to follow”.

That kind of self anointed.

Self anointed as in presuming you are here to teach the forum as evidence by your “in this thread I shall talk about xyz”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So giving people a heads up about what you want to write about is "self anointed" ?

Are most OPs evidence of "self anointing" ?

Maybe you prefer me done more false humility like this:

In this thread am really not too clear about this something. I may contribute something to its understanding. But I probably will only grope around, befuddled about everything, with little clue about what I should believe. Can't defend what I think either.

Enjoy.

Would that be less "self anointed" for you?



type of OPs, followed by 6 posts of you waffling on usually regurgitating something you pick up from other minister, and you setting yourself up as a “good Christian to follow”.

That kind of self anointed.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Other than you not liking someone posting and awaiting substantive remarks ON the subject matter, I don't see anything wrong.

You're just acting like the self anointed commitment police making sure everybody comes across as bewildered about a Bible theme as you might be.

So much for "self anointed".
Define your other two favorite terms "waffle" and "regurgitate".

Are multitudes of you chat like one or two liners pristine examples of non waffle writing ? Dubious distinction.

Is there a unspoken rule about repeating what one learned perhaps from someone else ?

"Thou Shalt Always Be 100% Original".

Is that the 11th commandment?
Is that a rule of the Spirituality Forum or ANY forum here for that matter?

Where here does it say repeating what one has learned from others is counter productive on this Forum?

Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

Originally posted by @divegeester
There many forum posters who have left the site who added value through providing contextual contrast and differentiated opinion.

I wouldn't have thought less of you if you had just said, "yes". Perhaps the opposite, even.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
...but yours IS fallible, so excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

This isn't a mere snark...it's a serious question. How can a being with (often self-admittedly) fallible judgment verify that another's judgment is INfallible?

Wouldn't a more reasonable claim be "I have never known being X to have made a wrong judgment."?

Does that mean you cannot trust the verdict of any human judge that has ever made a verdict simply because they are fallible human beings?

Originally posted by @sonship
So much for "self anointed".

Define your other two favorite terms "waffle" and "regurgitate".

Waffle as in when responding to a direct question you avoid actually answering by writing copious semi-related or unrelated verbiage in an effort to disguise the fact that you have avoided the direct question.

This is usually padded out with lots of unnecessary html “quotes”, of for example the original post, when the reply and quote has already retained the original post, bolding, italicising, dotted lines.

That kind of waffle.

Regurgitate as in present in here the ministerial ideas of other preachers as being your own. When challenged you claim you have modified them somehow but in effect you have plagiarised another minister’s thoughts and presented them without acknowledgement.

That kind of regurgitating.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
I wouldn't have thought less of you if you had just said, "yes". Perhaps the opposite, even.

I wouldn’t have cared.

Originally posted by @sonship
Ridicule, mockery, belittling ... the really hefty intellectual tools of wannabe new atheists like yourself.

Ridicule, mockery and belittling are, on occasion, the right tools to use. And I resent your suggestion that I am a 'wannabe' or 'new' atheist. I am a dyed-in-the-wool original flavour atheist. With respect to some - although not you or becker - I think you have to be a little bit crazy to believe in any god, and the christian version seems particularly bizarre to me.