Lets Get Cfs Back To Friendly

Discussion in 'Important Things To Consider' started by Jeffin, Jun 12, 2013.

  1. Yes...My concerns are that certain groups want control over member's participation concerning what is "false" and what is "true" according to their denomination or personal understanding. This is the root of the problem, and an insult to true religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

    That being said, THIS forum is not a springboard for non-Christians, plain and simple. However, I see no one here endowed by God to decide which Christian is doctrinally superior over all others, nor have I seen any "good fruits" from those who want to wrestle control over what is posted.....nothing but personal attacks and libel.

    It is also true that by "their BAD fruits ye shall know them", and no one here has a heavenly mandate to call names, belittle persons, or insult ministries......
  2. I'm inclined to agree.
  3. What I find funny rusty, is you sit here and want me to point fingers at certain people, and address every little concern you got, and you ignore the meat of the message. I did list an example. I also listed an example of ones Ive seen others. The goal of this thread, is what it would take, to get this site, back to friendly-and I have been explaining, repeatedly, what I think. Pointing fingers, does not work towards the goals of getting the site back to friendly. And sure, I could answer every little thing in your post, its just pointing fingers. If you are so worked up on pointing fingers, then maybe its time you open the Bible and read what it says, because pointing fingers, and playing these childish games, just goes against what the very title of this thread says.

    Let me give you an example between what is a polite debate, and what is false teaching. A polite debate goes like this:

    person A: states that he thinks that planet X exists, because of this evidence, and this evidence.

    Person B: states that that is wrong, because of this reason or that reason.

    Person A: brings forth new evidence.

    Person B: refutes new evidence.

    and so on and so forth. That is a polite debate. (im just using planet X as AN EXAMPLE). I have no problem with said debate.


    person B: I dont think thats right


    Now, that particular scenario, has never actually played out here at this site. it is a completly fictional, and extreme example of what I am talking about, so dont translate it as more then it is. My point is, debates, are heavily frowned upon here, debates of any nature-especially political ones. Which only leads to shallow discussions. I think, christianity affects everything, politics and otherwise, and debates need to be allowed-as long as they follow guidelines, are professional and courteous. if we see something that we see as false, we need the ability to call it out and discuss it. and if it really is false, like example 2 up there, removed. Its not necessarily the content-but the way it is presented.

    Now, is that clear enough, or are you going to ignore half of it and only pull out only what you want to out of it, and perhaps twist it around someway that makes me look like a evil bad guy?
  4. From my experience, everyone here comes across mature enough not to cross that line into shouting at the other guy, including you and Rusty. Half of my comments have become debates and there seems to be a mutual respect for the other guy. Perhaps you've been here longer and have more concern for a reason.
  5. Apparently you don't understand what speed reading is. You get the specifics without all the extraneous. That this also seems to offend you is kind of telling, in that you get easily offended without reason.
    I don't think you are being mean but I do think you are being reactive and are NOT making any valid real points.
    I have already asked POLITELY, I'm not going to beg.
  6. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but it doesn't look like any of you completely disagree. Patriot gave a "what-if" scenario that is probably best judged by the admins since this forum belongs to them. There are more important things than the back-and-forth. Perhaps this argument isn't quite worth it. After all, we're all brothers in Christ.
  7. I made several valid points. several I have repeated. And I understand what you mean by speed read-the problem with speed read is you pick out what you consider to be important and ignore the rest. and the problem with that is, sometimes, what you think is the important part, was not what the writer intended, and sometimes that "erroneous material" you speak of, supports and is necessary for understanding the point made.
  8. Well....Patriot....You still have not addressed the meat of the my post #55, have not explained your flip-flop about Catholics and Mary appearances, nor shown any willingness to be specific at all about "false doctrines", people from Planet X nor have you actually stopped replying to posts here as you keep saying you will do.

    I think Shapiro is right....waste of time, not friendly or direct or specific or logical at all.

    I think the Mods are doing a fine job about rooting out cultist trolls and non-Christians: I hope they do not follow anyone's suggestions as to dunning (or removing) other Christians who speak in tongues, have tattoos, go to doctors, disagree with Dispensationists/TULIPites/dip babies/cover women's heads at church or any other differences.

    I hope they will become more vigilant with name callers, faith measurers, and bully boys in general.
  9. well first off, I didnt say the mods wernt doing a good job-I said they need to allow debates. Second as I have already explained to you, pointing fingers, not only is it childlike, it doesnt contribute to the topic at hand. The one example that I did list you twisted and/or completly ignored the point I made already. But, Im glad you now think my idea to discontinue discussion with you is a good one. thankyou.
  10. Never said you accused the Mods of anything....That's a bit assumptive.
    You do a Chicken Little about people from planet X and false doctrines, but seem to want to hide behind your "childishness" shield so you can't be in the spotlight. Your backing up your claims contributes TONS to the topic: YOU accused the site of having folks that teach false doctrines....YOU will not commit. YOU wanted false prophets "removed", but no one has suggested otherwise...just wondered what the heck you mean by the term.YOU ignored my repeated requests for your details about your flip flop, but accuse me of ignoring....what? Your script on "debate"?

    I find it very unfriendly to start folks looking under the bed for heretics and then bail.....Not cool at all, IMO.
  11. it was an example rusty-with the last one I even said it was an example, with the planet X. Example. a fictitious example, of what I was talking about. to make my point clear. If you refuse to even try to understand what Im saying, then thats your problem-there was no flip flop-just your inability to understand what I was trying to get accross. Just like this last post of yours-your not trying to understand me or even ask questions, your simply going on the attack.
  12. Nope...I finding you unable to explain, commit, be clear or be specific.

    You shift the blame on me.

    Claiming that you are not anti-Catholic and then point to Marian appearances as an example of falsehood is....well...disconnected is a polite way to say it.

    Why will you not answer that, or anything about the concerns in #55.....You're no victim....You want debate but will not even take a stand....
  13. Not even close, and I said extraneous, NOT erroneous. You see, if you CAN'T even properly read my simple replies to a couple of your posts now, how can you expect to have POLITE debates, when you can't or won't take the time to actually read and understand what is being written to you?
    I won't continue this conversation patriot. If you want answers, you have to be willing to ASK the question, not equivocate.
    Rusty likes this.
  14. Well...I'm buffaloed, Stan.

    What weirds me out about more than one poster here is the suggestion to ban, remove or retard folks that are not up to some tribe's personal standards, so far I have seen these as clearly denominational ones.

    Anyone taking the time to research will find that the Mods have done a fine job of parrying attempts by cults, non-Christians and aggressive atheists. So any whine about "others" must, by elimination, mean something else, but so far no one has had the wherewithal to delineate what they mean.

    Sadly, several of the more attacking "old guard" are now invisible to me. I've shaken the dust from my sandals from those who constantly call names and attack ministries they no zip about.
    Stan likes this.
  15. Im sorry, I didnt realize that not believing that mother mary standing on the moon naked is anti-catholic. Oh wait, its not, most actual catholics not only dont believe that but the catholic church doesn't even teach that. But thats beside the point, whether or not mary is or is not standing on the moon, is not the subject here, and was not the subject I was trying to convey in that post. I was merely showing the difference between a debate-and what might be called a troll of false teacher. If you want to sidetrack on all of your other "points" it wont change a thing-they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and I fail to see why you are taking thing so personally. I stated my opinion-that this site should allow debates of all nature, as long as they follow certain guidelines. And if someone comes along who simply wants to teach something that is obviously false and against the TOS, then they should be removed. That was my opinion to begin with, that is my opinion now. It has not changed. It has not flip flopped. And you wanting to side track on every little thing, won't change that.

    The problem is not htat I am unwilling to take a stand-the problem is I took a stand and you don't like it.
  16. I got my words confused, I meant extraneous, I apologize for getting those words confused.

  17. again, with the passive aggressive attacks and putting words in my mouth. I never once said-or even hinted, that the mods were doing a bad job of removing cults and aggressive atheists, and the such. What I said was, they have discouraged deep debates-especially of a political nature. So if your going to accuse me of something then at least use what I actually said.

    Secondly, I never said ban, remove or retard folks of anyone who was not up to my personal standards. So again, please quote me right. You do realize, that these little passive aggressive jabs are just as much of an attack as you accuse others of being? And don't play innocent-its exactly what they are. Don't you think its being a little hypocritical?

    Secondly. Stan, I do owe you an apology-while I don't agree with you, you have at least been professional, and havent attacked me. I apologize if I came down on you a bit harsh-I fear I may have let some of my frustration at rusty spill over on you, and I apologize.
  18. I never said you anywhere in post #114, patriot.....Relax...Quit calling names. Stop attacking by claim others are attacking you.

    This is debate, whether you want to believe it or not.

    OK....so where are these cultic posts on the forum?

    Show me where I said you said the Mods are slack....Where?
  19. I get tired of your games rusty-I was the one you were referring to, and we both know it-so either man up and admit it and apologize, or not. I could care less.
  20. #120 Rusty, Aug 20, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
    Nope...I am thinking of a whole batch of folks....Not merely you. Read my posts again, and you MAY realize that.

    Man up and take me at my word.

    Odd how when someone, anyone of this bunch is debated and wiggles, they call others childish and game players....Name calling is a bad Christian habit.....harder for most then quieting smoking.

    So if you are yearning merely for "deep political debates"....What's stopping you?

Share This Page