21 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustOriginally posted by CalJust
I would like to add one item to Forum Etiquette that has, (as far as I can see) not been mentioned yet.
For a debate to have any reasonable chance to provide meaningful dialogue, there has to be at least a level of common ground. For example, if the subject is some obscure interpretation of a bible passage between various groups of christians, then it is ...[text shortened]... recognition of, and respect for, the limits within which a specific discussion is taking place.
I would like to add one item to Forum Etiquette that has, (as far as I can see) not been mentioned yet...
... along with presuming to participate with an inadequate frame of reference and emotional immaturity (with a Hi IQ).
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiDid you not read the second part of my post??
Do you also advise Christians not to jump into discussions about morality and human interactions in everyday life and start talking about people with different beliefs from them burning in hell for all eternity while claiming they themselves will live for ever and ever?
ðŸ˜
21 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustOf course. I am not talking about something like a discussion about a historical literary document. My question is quite specific about "eternal torment" and "suffering for eternity" and being tortured by fire forever, and so on and so forth, and assertions about their own immortality etc. Do you advise your fellow Christians to not jump in with stuff like this in discussions about things like morality?
Did you not read the second part of my post??
ðŸ˜
21 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo assumption made; OP is based on hard facts and repeated behavioural evidence. It's going on in more than one current thread as we speak.
Ducking out of the debate can also be confused with having a life and just
not getting back here. Why assume the worse?
Kelly
21 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat should people whose emotional maturity is not high enough [according to you] do? Post or not post? What would you say to people who think you yourself have "an inadequate frame of reference"?
Originally posted by CalJust
I would like to add one item to Forum Etiquette that has, (as far as I can see) not been mentioned yet...
... along with presuming to participate with an inadequate frame of reference and emotional immaturity (with a Hi IQ).
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustDo you think it is acceptable behaviour in this forum to start a thread inviting comment and then repeatedly and blatantly ignore those respondents that the author finds either dissagreable in terms of content or belief structure?
I would like to add one item to Forum Etiquette that has, (as far as I can see) not been mentioned yet.
For a debate to have any reasonable chance to provide meaningful dialogue, there has to be at least a level of common ground. For example, if the subject is some obscure interpretation of a bible passage between various groups of christians, then it is ...[text shortened]... recognition of, and respect for, the limits within which a specific discussion is taking place.
21 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySorry to press you GB but you seem to spend a lot of effort creating "analysis" threads about his forum and you have been mere many year so I thought you would have more of a response than "unclear".
Unclear... unless it's suggesting that the topic got trampled and nicked and the thread didn't go as planned. Just a guess.
Galveston said to robbie carrobie that he thinks I would be regretting starting this thread and then refuses to engage with me on that point.
This behaviour exemplifies an element what this thread is about -
Poster a) is unhappy with the thread and takes a side-swipe comment at the author by commenting publically to a ally poster b).
Poster a) then refuses to engage with the person at which the comment was aimed/made.
I don't care about the comment, what I'm interested in is the behaviour which the same poster regularly exhibits in his threads. My analysis is that it is cowardly and childish.
What further insight do you have?
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustThat's not how public forums work.
I would like to add one item to Forum Etiquette that has, (as far as I can see) not been mentioned yet.
For a debate to have any reasonable chance to provide meaningful dialogue, there has to be at least a level of common ground. For example, if the subject is some obscure interpretation of a bible passage between various groups of christians, then it is ...[text shortened]... recognition of, and respect for, the limits within which a specific discussion is taking place.
Basically, you're asking for atheists to butt out of inter-Christian discussions. And perhaps, vice-versa.
There is an easy way to deal with your hypothetical. If an off-topic post appears, ignore it. And ignore the responses to it. Nothing stops you from continuing your part of the discussion.
Originally posted by SwissGambitId just like to say divesgeester still sucks. That is all.
That's not how public forums work.
Basically, you're asking for atheists to butt out of inter-Christian discussions. And perhaps, vice-versa.
There is an easy way to deal with your hypothetical. If an off-topic post appears, ignore it. And ignore the responses to it. Nothing stops you from continuing your part of the discussion.
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiAbsolutely!
Do you advise your fellow Christians to not jump in with stuff like this in discussions about things like morality?
A discussion about eternal hellfire is only appropriate in a discussion about eternal hellfire- such as my thread on that subject a while back.
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeester2 Pet 2:2 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.
Sorry to press you GB but you seem to spend a lot of effort creating "analysis" threads about his forum and you have been mere many year so I thought you would have more of a response than "unclear".
Galveston said to robbie carrobie that he thinks I would be regretting starting this thread and then refuses to engage with me on that point.
This beha ...[text shortened]... threads. My analysis is that it is cowardly and childish.
What further insight do you have?
