Meta-narrative

@kellyjay said
If you think there is God's side and God's opponent's side, whose side are you on?

I am an agnostic atheist. Your superstitious attachment to a particular God figure does not create any logical or emotional burden on me.

Your false dilemma is like me asking you:

"Do you love test cricket or hate it?"

And then when you say you are not interested in cricket and don't follow it, it'd be like me concluding:

"Well then you must hate test cricket and oppose all its rules!"

@fmf said
I am an agnostic atheist. Your superstitious attachment to a particular God figure does not create any logical or emotional burden on me.

Your false dilemma is like me asking you:

"Do you love test cricket or hate it?"

And then when you say you are not interested in cricket and don't follow it, it'd be like me concluding:

"Well then you must hate test cricket and oppose all its rules!"

As I said, anti-Christ.

@kellyjay said
So what? It isn't my thoughts but the reality of reality that we are talking about.

No, not so. We are talking about your personal opinions about "reality" rooted in your subjective conjecture about supernatural causality. We are ONLY talking about your thoughts and about mine. That is all. Nothing grander than that.

@kellyjay said
As I said, anti-Christ.

Are you "Anti-Test Cricket"?

@kellyjay said
More name-calling, you think I'm cowering away, seriously, you have a real difficult
time with reality as it is.

You have cowered away from discussing the implications of your narcissistic, technocratic 'debating point' involving the label "Anti-Christ"... what next?

Are you going to tell me I have "blasphemed the Holy Spirit" or that I am a "heretic".

I think your terminology is for the consumption of other Christians and is therefore performative.

You are unable to discuss the implications of your labelling. You have laughably dismissed that discussion as me playing the victim card! Which offers quite a vivid glimpse of your own mentality.

@kellyjay said
I'm consistent nothing disingenuous about what I have been saying.

Every time you describe my decades of faith you do so as if you have never read any of my posts. Or in the most facetious way you can ~ as long as it suits your rhetoric and your evasiveness. You try to belittle it [ironically enough] by referring to the Easter Bunny and "pews in church". Do you actually understand what the word "disingenuous" means?

@kellyjay said
As I said, anti-Christ.

You are OUT leg before wicket, KellyJay. No. wait a minute. It was a bat-pad chance. It has been pouched by the short square leg who was perhaps actually in a short backward square leg position. And he ran you out for good measure when you left your crease anyway. Whatever. You're out! You're out! You're out!

@kellyjay said
That is not true, and I believe him when he says he used to call himself a Christian
that is not what I have highlighted but that you seem to overlook.

No, FMF says he WAS a Christian and you don’t believe him.

You keep saying “I am taking him at his word”, you aren’t, you’re lying.

Worse still you’re judging.
We are warned not to judge by Jesus.
You should take heed of the commands of God kellyjay.

@fmf said
You have cowered away from discussing the implications of your narcissistic, technocratic 'debating point' involving the label "Anti-Christ"... what next?

Are you going to tell me I have "blasphemed the Holy Spirit" or that I am a "heretic".

I think your terminology is for the consumption of other Christians and is therefore performative.

You are unable to discuss the ...[text shortened]... discussion as me playing the victim card! Which offers quite a vivid glimpse of your own mentality.

My narcissistic technocratic debating point, why not just say my point? We are
discussing labels we apply to ourselves, and you think I'm a narcissist and my
points are such that you can say they are simply a 'technocratic debating point'
that is okay because that is how you define what I am and what I have said. I
give you a Biblical definition and how you fit it, and I'm the bad guy here.

God is real, the Holy Spirit is real, and truth and you deny them and put them
down as nothing but a thought we carry around in our heads; what you think
you are doing to the Holy Spirit, giving Him the due He deserves, or belittling
Him by suggesting He is nothing real outside of our thoughts, this shows
your anti-stance, it comes out in much of what you say and stand for.

@kellyjay said
My narcissistic technocratic debating point, why not just say my point?

Because in making your "point" you are being narcissistic and the application of 'believers' terminology' to non-believers, as if it carries some moral weight based purely on your religionist zeal, is ostentatiously "technocratic" and quite obviously performative.

@kellyjay said
We are
discussing labels we apply to ourselves, and you think I'm a narcissist and my
points are such that you can say they are simply a 'technocratic debating point'
that is okay because that is how you define what I am and what I have said.

I do not call you narcissistic for superstitious reasons.

@kellyjay said
I give you a Biblical definition and how you fit it, and I'm the bad guy here.

I haven't said you are "bad". I simply think you just smelling your own farts, KellyKay [and that is a metaphor, by the way, please note]. Come on then, discuss the reality surrounding your labelling ... Thread 193601 ... don't run away from the real-world implications of what you have said.

@kellyjay said
God is real, the Holy Spirit is real, and truth and you deny them and put them
down as nothing but a thought we carry around in our heads; what you think
you are doing to the Holy Spirit, giving Him the due He deserves, or belittling
Him by suggesting He is nothing real outside of our thoughts, this shows
your anti-stance, it comes out in much of what you say and stand for.

I am fully aware of the tenets of your Christian faith, but, alas I am not a Christian. I am no more "anti"-the God figure you believe in than I am anti-Woden or anti-Brahman or anti-Waheguru.

@divegeester said
No, FMF says he WAS a Christian and you don’t believe him.

You keep saying “I am taking him at his word”, you aren’t, you’re lying.

Worse still you’re judging.
We are warned not to judge by Jesus.
You should take heed of the commands of God kellyjay.

I accept that he says he was a Christian, but what we say isn't the definition we
go by for Christianity. No matter how anyone has tried to live, what they did,
what they said, or how much truth they think they know, can any of that get us
right with God outside of Jesus. Not having God in them means they don't
belong to the Lord, and they are not right with God; if all it takes is a profession
and nothing else, then every unrepentant rapist, murderer, child molester, thief,
hate monger can call themselves a Christian, and no one could dispute it. We can
call ourselves anything, but in the end, are we in fellowship with God in Christ?

Being a Christian is by being redeemed by the work of Christ in our lives; we have
the righteousness of God imparted to us, without Christ we are earning it by some
other means, only with Christ in us are we truly Christian when God has entered
into our lives and has started sanctifying us. All of those without Christ, no matter
how much they proclaim it or no matter how hard they try to measure up are
outside of Christ.

Saying God isn't real, we cannot know God as truth only shows that what it
takes to be a Christian, Jesus Christ, was only a wishful thought, not a reality.

@kellyjay said
Not having God in them means they don't
belong to the Lord, and they are not right with God; if all it takes is a profession
and nothing else, then every unrepentant rapist, murderer, child molester, thief,
hate monger can call themselves a Christian, and no one could dispute it.

Are you still talking about me?

When did I say that my faith was only "profession and nothing else"?

Why are you pretending to have never read or understood any of my posts on the nature of my faith?