Deceiver of the whole world

@fmf said
Your inability to deal with ideas, observations and questions in debates here is part of the discourse. Your inability to deal with what goes on in discussions because of your huffy pride basically defines your online persona here.

Why should kelly respond to that kind of discourse? You're not hearing what he's saying and replying appropriately.

Instead you generate idiotic comments about his "huffy pride" and define his "online persona" according to your projected, and baseless, biases you harbor against those that hold to different opinions than yours.

@secondson said
Why should kelly respond to that kind of discourse? You're not hearing what he's saying and replying appropriately.

He can remain silent if he wants. It's his prerogative. It provides information about his contribution to the discussion and the merit of what he believes. I hear what he says. And I reply appropriately. A few hours before he started this latest boycott, he commended me for the way I advocate my ideas and for the thought that I put into what I post.

@secondson said
Instead you generate idiotic comments about his "huffy pride" and define his "online persona" according to your projected, and baseless, biases you harbor against those that hold to different opinions than yours.

My comments are not "idiotic". And I like nothing more than to engage people who have different opinions from me.

@kellyjay said
If there is a truth to be known in scripture that is a threat to all opinions, the truth has to be accepted over opinions. The only way all different views can be relevant, is if everyone can make it up as they go! What does it mean to you, if that is the bottom line, there is no real truth in scripture. As soon as we hit upon the first cause, or truth that is not dependent upon personal views, people can be held accountable.

Yes, and the idea that there is Truth relative to an absolute standard is so confrontational to their world view that they have to employ ad hominem attacks to satisfy the emptiness left in their souls for rejecting Truth.

They especially hate it when God's Word says they're spiritually dead and separated from the life of God by their sin, and that the remedy is Jesus Christ who died for their sin so that they can have eternal life.

@fmf said
My comments are not "idiotic". And I like nothing more than to engage people who have different opinions from me.

It is very idiotic to comment on kelly's "huffy pride" and "online persona".

Just who the hell do you think you are? Keep your comments relative to the subject matter. Worry about your own huffy pride and online persona.

@secondson said
Yes, and the idea that there is Truth relative to an absolute standard is so confrontational to their world view that they have to employ ad hominem attacks to satisfy the emptiness left in their souls for rejecting Truth.

They especially hate it when God's Word says they're spiritually dead and separated from the life of God by their sin, and that the remedy is Jesus Christ who died for their sin so that they can have eternal life.

KellyJay spent the whole of 2019 trying NOT to discuss "the idea that there is Truth relative to an absolute standard" with anyone, choosing instead to simply assert, over and over again, the idea that his personal, subjective opinions about "the Truth" constitute an absolute standard for everybody. That's all he did. And his way of 'substantiating' his assertions in discussions was to simply repeat it over and over and over again to people who agreed with him - like dj2becker, for example - and ignore numerous attempts to discuss it with him.

@secondson said
It is very idiotic to comment on kelly's "huffy pride" and "online persona".

All we know about each other is the online personas we present here which comprise what we say and how we conduct ourselves. The term "online persona" is not the slightest bit controversial or negative in and of itself. As for KellyJay's pridefulness and his huffiness, that's just my take on his personality, as seen on this forum. It's not an "idiotic" perspective.

@fmf said
And I like nothing more than to engage people who have different opinions from me.

But the question is why and to what end? Based on your track record it appears you want to avoid discussion and belittle your debate opponents.

Isn't kelly avoiding you? God forbid it should be, at least in part, because of you.

@secondson said
Just who the hell do you think you are? Keep your comments relative to the subject matter. Worry about your own huffy pride and online persona.

Call things how you see them and post what you want ~ like you are doing now. That's what I do, too.

@secondson said
But the question is why and to what end? Based on your track record it appears you want to avoid discussion and belittle your debate opponents.

I think this is a mischaracterization of my contribution, although you may well feel belittled sometimes. I don't think I do "avoid discussion", indeed, I think I get to the heart of matters almost all the time.

@secondson said
Isn't kelly avoiding you? God forbid it should be, at least in part, because of you.

It's because he tried to leverage my parental instincts/love for my family in a shabby way when he was trying to justify eternal torment in burning flames. It's not something I would ever do in a discussion here. He didn't like being called out for it. He didn't like it at all. I get the impression he's trying to make that misstep by him seem like it was somehow my fault.

@fmf said
All we know about each other is the online personas we present here which comprise what we say and how we conduct ourselves. The term "online persona" is not the slightest bit controversial or negative in and of itself. As for KellyJay's pridefulness and his huffiness, that's just my take on his personality, as seen on this forum. It's not an "idiotic" perspective.

This forum isn't an online social media club where we share our personal information.

I couldn't care less about your "persona" or "pride" issues, much less your opinions of others.

I'm here to discuss matters relative to the topics about things spiritual.

That's it. I'm not here to join a circle jerk to stroke someone's ego.

@secondson said
This forum isn't an online social media club where we share our personal information.

This forum most certainly is social media and everybody here shares whatever opinions and personal information they choose to.

@secondson said
I couldn't care less about your "persona" or "pride" issues, much less your opinions of others.

If this so, you can stop talking about them at whatever point you want.

@secondson said
I'm here to discuss matters relative to the topics about things spiritual.
That's it. I'm not here to join a circle jerk to stroke someone's ego.

Interesting turn of phrase. Is a "circle jerk" where men masturbate together?