Somebody help me...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what if hes a liar who was never really a Christian, one must consider the possibilities.

Sure, 'what if FMF is a liar?' It's a legitimate personal question directed at me. However unless you deem every ex-Christian to be lying about their former Christian faith, how does your question further meaningful discussion of KellyJay's somewhat baffling theology?

Sure, supposing I am a liar; supposing KellyJay is a liar; supposing divegeester is a liar; supposing everyone here is a liar... etc. etc. Fine, supposing all that. Discussion evaded. Great.

But supposing, like with FreakyKBH, we assume there is no doubt about the sincerity of the former faith of an ex-Christian like me, how does KellyJay's theology work?

It's an interesting question and it would be interesting to hear if divegeester gets a clear answer from KellyJay.

Originally posted by FMF
Sure, 'what if FMF is a liar?' It's a legitimate personal question directed at me. However unless you deem every ex-Christian to be lying about their former Christian faith, how does your question further meaningful discussion of KellyJay's somewhat baffling theology?

Sure, supposing I am a liar; supposing KellyJay is a liar; supposing divegeester is a liar; ...[text shortened]... g question and it would be interesting to hear if divegeester gets a clear answer from KellyJay.

Its neither personal nor directed at you, its merely a possibility that one needs to consider. I am not saying you are a liar nor am i saying that you were merely masquerading as a Christian, again, I am merely saying that its a possibility after all when one is considering the veracity of a variation and subjecting it to falsification no matter how absurd or unrealistic it seems, it must be considered or shall we simply discount the possibility altogether and take up Ludo instead?

Has Kelly J said that you are a liar? has he said that you were not a real Christian and merely masquerading as one? How would he know? If the basis of this assertion is that real bona fide Christians don't or cannot leave being a Christian then the premise is demonstrably false, Biblically at least.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its neither personal nor directed at you, its merely a possibility that one needs to consider. I am not saying you are a liar nor am i saying that you were merely masquerading as a Christian, again, I am merely saying that its a possibility after all when one is considering the veracity of a variation and subjecting it to falsification no matter how ...[text shortened]... you are a liar? has he said that you were not a real Christian and merely masquerading as one?

I find your whole angle superfluous to what has otherwise been quite a fascinating discussion. Pursue it with others if you think it is interesting. The question "Is KellyJay lying?" similarly does not further the discussion about the whole idea of there being "ex-Christians" [or not, as the case may be] which is going on here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Has Kelly J said that you are a liar? has he said that you were not a real Christian and merely masquerading as one?

Yes, repeatedly. Perhaps you should consider reading the thread before diving in.

Originally posted by FMF
I find your whole angle superfluous to what has otherwise been quite a fascinating discussion. Pursue it with others if you think it is interesting. The question "Is KellyJay lying?" similarly does not further the discussion about the whole idea of there being "ex-Christians" [or not, as the case may be] which is going on here.

I find you whole angle empty and devoid of anything but vague references to personalities, so you like to play Ludo, fascinating.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Its neither personal nor directed at you, its merely a possibility that one needs to consider. I am not saying you are a liar nor am i saying that you were merely masquerading as a Christian, again, I am merely saying that its a possibility after all when one is considering the veracity of a variation and subjecting it to falsification no matter how absurd or unrealistic it seems, it must be considered or shall we simply discount the possibility altogether and take up Ludo instead?

It would appear that you did not really read the post you were responding to. Maybe you should just read it again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I find you whole angle empty and devoid of anything but vague references to personalities, so you like to play Ludo, fascinating.

Perhaps you should read the thread and if you genuinely find it empty and devoid of anything but vague references to personalities then consider not posting on it. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...so you like to play Ludo, fascinating.

Why not take this kind of stuff to the Clans Forum?

Originally posted by FMF
Why not take this kind of stuff to the Clans Forum?

because it belongs here and infact is a rather subtle analogy that you fail to grasp and is far too subtle for you and the clans forum. You are prepared to dismiss arguments on the basis of popularity, personal preference, personalities etc as is self evident from above, well then play Ludo for they roll dice and realy on an element of luck, but for us that are used to evaluating arguments such as chess variations and philosophical and religious propositions we do not dismiss anything so readily on such a flimsy basis and are prepared to look at all possibilities, perhaps if you stopped trying to fob off your own narrow perspective on people telling them what is of interest to them and where they can argue you would recognise this and do better.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you should read the thread and if you genuinely find it empty and devoid of anything but vague references to personalities then consider not posting on it. 🙂

wow what a tin hat forum dictator, is that an authoritative request or just another narrow perspective fobbed off on other people.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

because it belongs here and infact is a rather subtle analogy that you fail to grasp and is far too subtle for you and the clans forum. You are prepared to dismiss arguments on the basis of popularity, personal preference, personalities etc , well then play Ludo for they roll dice, but for us that are used to evaluating arguments such as chess variations and philosophical and religious propositions we do not dismiss anything so readily on such a flimsy basis and are prepared to look at all possibilities, perhaps if you stopped trying to fob off your own narrow perspective on people telling them what is of interest to them and where they can argue you would recognise this and do better. Who can say?

This is why you made a Clan Forum style post about "playing Ludo"?

I think if you actually read this thread you will find that the examination of KellyJay's theology by quite a few posters has been fairly interesting.

I really do think "amiable" remarks about "playing Ludo" rather misses the points that have been raised. You should read it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow what a tin hat forum dictator, is that an authoritative request or just another narrow perspective fobbed off on other people.

Your last few posts sound like you haven't read the thread. I suggest you read it before talking about "playing Ludo" and "tin hats".

Originally posted by FMF
[b]because it belongs here and infact is a rather subtle analogy that you fail to grasp and is far too subtle for you and the clans forum. You are prepared to dismiss arguments on the basis of popularity, personal preference, personalities etc , well then play Ludo for they roll dice, but for us that are used to evaluating arguments such as chess variations and ...[text shortened]... remarks about "playing Ludo" rather misses the points that have been raised. You should read it.

Ludo involves an element of luck, you roll dice and move counters, chess by way of comparison involves the looking at variations and falsifying every variation no matter how absurd, you in the above dismiss variations on this theme because, you think its not poplar, it doesn't personally appeal to you etc etc well then, take up Ludo because you are ill suited for chess and ill suited for here where people may consider any possibility they like, regardless of your narrow personal perspective. Now i have explained it to you i hope that you grasp what you failed to grasp initially. If i was in clans I would simply cut to the chase and term you an imbecile here i gave you the benefit of trying to use your powers of discernment, which was wasted on you, oh well.

Originally posted by FMF
Your last few posts sound like you haven't read the thread. I suggest you read it before talking about "playing Ludo" and "tin hats".

I suggest you stop telling me what to do, what to read, what is of interest and worth pursuing and where to go. If you don't like the posts, you don't have to read them, panic over problem solved.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ludo involves an element of luck, you roll dice and move counters, chess by way of comparison involves the looking at variations and falsifying every variation no matter how absurd, you in the above dismiss variations on this theme because, you think its not poplar, it doesn't personally appeal to you etc etc well then, take up Ludo because you are i ...[text shortened]... e you the benefit of trying to use your powers of discernment, which was wasted on you, oh well.

As I said before, why not take this kind of stuff ~ about me "taking up Ludo because [I am] ill suited for chess" etc. etc. etc. etc. ~ to the Clans Forum?