Multiple people shot at Ft. Lauderdale airport

[Adrift]

I don't think you realize the extent to which this makes having a discussion with you awkward and unfun, because you aren't actually engaging with the other person, you're doing showmanship for those you imagine to be on the sidelines. Precisely because I know you're just trying to show off for their imagined applause or trying to look good in front of them, rather than having any sort of serious and honest discussion with the person you're engaging with, half the time I just completely ignore your posts. Jaecp and I have both discussed repeatedly in private with each other how this practice makes your posting really weird and you an incredibly awkward and unpleasant person to engage with because you'd rather "win" for the "audience" than talk honestly and frankly about issues. Conversations simply don't work properly when one person's having a discussion over coffee and the other is prancing around a stage putting on their debating voice and playing to the audience. You seem to have a few issues in your life, and this is the least of them, but perhaps try to engage seriously with people and don't just do it as a display?

I have discussions with people who want discussions. As Zymologist points out, you're not that person. You've NEVER been that person.

I sincerely don't care if you and Jaecp don't like the way I post. Deal with it, or ignore me.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think you realize the extent to which this makes having a discussion with you awkward and unfun, because you aren't actually engaging with the other person, you're doing showmanship for those you imagine to be on the sidelines. Precisely because I know you're just trying to show off for their imagined applause or trying to look good in front of them, rather than having any sort of serious and honest discussion with the person you're engaging with, half the time I just completely ignore your posts. Jaecp and I have both discussed repeatedly in private with each other how this practice makes your posting really weird and you an incredibly awkward and unpleasant person to engage with because you'd rather "win" for the "audience" than talk honestly and frankly about issues. Conversations simply don't work properly when one person's having a discussion over coffee and the other is prancing around a stage putting on their debating voice and playing to the audience. You seem to have a few issues in your life, and this is the least of them, but perhaps try to engage seriously with people and don't just do it as a display?

I have no idea how you get that image of Adrift. If he were that concerned with playing to an audience, he wouldn't butt heads with JP Holding, who's kinda popular around these parts. I think his emotions get the better of him sometimes, but people who are into punk are ...not exactly playing to the crowd.
And, um, you're the one theatrically screaming about blood on peoples' hands and the like.

[Starlight]

I have no idea how you get that image of Adrift. If he were that concerned with playing to an audience...

Perhaps you missed it:

When I post on apologetic issues, it's rarely to win over the person I'm debating. I know full well that they're already committed to whatever views they hold (though I retain some hope that something might click down the road), it's for those on the sidelines, the lurkers, or those who know the facts, who've read the literature, but can't quite put it into words, or remember the academic sources themselves.

He has given a similar explanation in the past too.

you're the one theatrically screaming about blood on peoples' hands and the like.

A doubtless misguided attempt to try to help some conservatives here realize how people in much of the rest of the world see you. Most people I talk to here, their very first response to seeing a headline of a US massacre is to shake their heads and ask how the pro-gun people in the US can be that callous that they cause that number of deaths. I think very very few US conservatives realize how deeply deeply immoral they are regarded as by the rest of the Western world.

And it's not just that the rest of the West is 'anti-Christian' or anything like that - my father is a moderate evangelical Christian and he has pretty much nothing but negative things to say about US Christianity - after recently attending a seminar by Brian McLaren he commented to me that on the whole he agreed with McLaren that US Christianity was unsavable.

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps you missed it:
He has given a similar explanation in the past too.

Wow. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? That is not at all "playing to an audience", i.e. "to win". That is making the best argument that one can, not in the hopes that your opponent (who is likely not amenable to change) will concede, but that those who are watching will be able to see that there is indeed an answer to what your opponent brings to the table.

I do the same thing, fwiw. Most people here are not EO. I don't figure that I'm going to argue anyone into becoming EO. However, I will do my best to accurately portray EO positions in the hopes that it will help someone. People are watching.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pretty much the same tactics used against Christianity. I wonder if that represents dishonesty or ignorance.

Usually both. Look at how Starlight seems to view himself as an expert on Christianity, even when his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians. However; since his bizarre interpretations make Christians look bad, they are mindlessly accepted, no matter what.

I believe guns should be available to all with the exception of "REAL" mental problems. The difficulty is that a liberal government would classify wanting to own a gun as a mental illness. Just another way to get around the 2nd.

I would expand this to include criminals and children, but I get your point. The issue with most gun control advocates is that they rarely (if ever) actually think their anti gun beliefs though. Much of their understandings are mainly based on ignorance, dishonesty, or even flat out lies.

[Adrift]

I have no idea how you get that image of Adrift. If he were that concerned with playing to an audience, he wouldn't butt heads with JP Holding. I think his emotions get the better of him sometimes, but people who are into punk are ...not exactly playing to the crowd.
And, um, you're the one theatrically screaming about blood on peoples' hands and the like.

Yeah, this same complaint keeps coming from him and Jaecp. I take it they got nothing else to run on. As I said last time this came up, if I were really working for approval from folks, I definitely didn't take the easy route. Starlight wasn't around when I was in debate after debate with other Christians on this forum (including one of the owners). Jaecp doesn't really have any excuse, but then again, I don't remember how involved he was in a lot of those debates.

[Adrift]

Wow. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? That is not at all "playing to an audience", i.e. "to win". That is making the best argument that one can, not in the hopes that your opponent (who is likely not amenable to change) will concede, but that those who are watching will be able to see that there is indeed an answer to what your opponent brings to the table.

I do the same thing, fwiw. Most people here are not EO. I don't figure that I'm going to argue anyone into becoming EO. However, I will do my best to accurately portray EO positions in the hopes that it will help someone. People are watching.

It's sad this needs explaining.

[lilpixieofterror]

LOL. It's amusing how much problem you seem to have variously had coping with me noting that I was a Christian for 20 years or so, and subsequently noting that I used to be an apologist. As far as it went, I would say I was probably pretty poor at and unsuccessful at apologistics. Much like you I guess. Although at least I did my apologetics in an atheist forum, unlike you who seem bizarrely to not merely do it in a Christian forum but do it on non-apologetics boards in that forum, like Civics. It makes you one of the most frustrating posters to deal with that I have ever encountered on boards because you aren't having discussions in good faith - rather than giving your own personal views like everyone else around here and having a fun discussion, you're instead trying to defend whatever you perceive to be The Christian Position against Those Darn Atheists, and it makes discussions both awkward and difficult to know how much you sincerely believe the things you are saying versus how much you are simply making arguments and claims because you feel you ought to as a Christian "apologist" who's doing what he perceives to be apologistics in the wrong place for it.

But I found it amusing the extent to which you (and others) reacted to my comment that I used to be a Christian with essentially "Noooooo, you can't have been a real Christian. Because a real Christian would never have become an atheist." And now you can't seem to cope with the idea that I used to do Christian apologetics, and have invented this fantasy that I saw myself as "a great and mighty apologist". You're such an idiot, it's hilarious.

So, you, who grew up in what you call a cult, is accusing me, who grew up in a totally mainstream and moderate baptist church, of "bizarre form[s] of Christianity"? You're a hoot.

Anybody notice the disconnect between the above post and this:

It amuses me that so many Christians convince themselves that they understand the logical consequences of the atheist worldview better than all the atheists that actually hold that worldview. So the atheists are nearly all secular humanists, whereas the Christians are claiming that atheism leads to nihilism. It's quite amusing really.

Amusing how you seems to use the same arguments when it comes to Christians understanding atheist, but seems to think the reverse is true that you actually understand Christians. It's clear (based upon you post) that you must have believed some truly bizarre interpretations of the Bible, that very few Christians actually believe. Wallow in your ignorance though. It amuses me to no end.

[Starlight]

Look at how Starlight seems to view himself as an expert on Christianity, even when his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians.

I think this has caused a lot of confusion for people here. The interpretations of the Bible that I, personally have come to hold after a decade of study and research differ significantly to common interpretations - I personally think that most people are very very very wrong in how they interpret the bible and that commonly Christians significantly misunderstand and misinterpret many many important passages. Though I was raised in pan-standard evangelical churches, my own later biblical and academic research led me to very different interpretations of biblical passages. This seems to greatly confuse people here. They often seem to mistakenly think that because I have my own personal opinion about which interpretation is best that I must not realize or know what the most common interpretation of the passage by other people is. It does not appear to occur to them that I might be not only extremely well aware of the common interpretation, but also aware of several alternative interpretations, and have my own opinions as to which of those interpretations is likely correct and why.

So, as you say in your comment, because "his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians" they seem to think that rules out me being "an expert on Christianity". Because no theologian or Christian academic ever proposed new views or new ideas or novel interpretations... and doing so would totally mean they knew nothing about standard Christianity at all...

[lilpixieofterror]

Perhaps you missed it:
He has given a similar explanation in the past too.

A doubtless misguided attempt to try to help some conservatives here realize how people in much of the rest of the world see you. Most people I talk to here, their very first response to seeing a headline of a US massacre is to shake their heads and ask how the pro-gun people in the US can be that callous that they cause that number of deaths. I think very very few US conservatives realize how deeply deeply immoral they are a regarded as by the rest of the Western world.

And it's not just that the rest of the West is 'anti-Christian' or anything like that - my father is a moderate evangelical Christian and he has pretty much nothing but negative things to say about US Christianity - after recently attending a seminar by Brian McLaren he commented to me that on the whole he agreed with McLaren that US Christianity was unsavable.

As has already been demonstrated, most anti gun nonsense is based upon ignorance and lies. Mass shootings happen in other countries too, even those with strict gun control laws in the books. Likewise, most people tend to ignore that there's more to a countries crime rates than merely the amount of shootings. I've lived in the US for decades and I've been a witness to zero shootings in all that time and I don't live as a shut in that rarely goes out. The majority of gun deaths and shootings tend to be the result of some criminal elements. Rather we're talking about drug deals gone bad or criminals that decide to take out their competition. The reality is quite simple, the odds of a law abiding US citizen, being shot, is pretty rare. However; if we were to listen to idiots like you, we'd have to conclude that we're dodging bullets everyday, when it's clear we are not. Sorry, but few take non American anti gun idiots very seriously when the facts and observations simply don't line up to reality.

[Jedidiah]

I'm an atheist. You get that I'm no longer a Christian right?

I was referring to the multitude of strawmen you have destroyed, that were supposedly Christian. I am painfully aware that you are an atheist, and that you never had any understanding of what "mainstream" Christianity believes.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think this has caused a lot of confusion for people here. The interpretations of the Bible that I, personally have come to hold after a decade of study and research differ significantly to common interpretations - I personally think that most people are very very very wrong in how they interpret the bible and that commonly Christians significantly misunderstand and misinterpret many many important passages. Though I was raised in pan-standard evangelical churches, my own later biblical and academic research led me to very different interpretations of biblical passages. This seems to greatly confuse people here. They often seem to mistakenly think that because I have my own personal opinion about which interpretation is best that I must not realize or know what the most common interpretation of the passage by other people is. It does not appear to occur to them that I might be not only extremely well aware of the common interpretation, but also aware of several alternative interpretations, and have my own opinions as to which of those interpretations is likely correct and why.

So, as you say in your comment, because "his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians" they seem to think that rules out me being "an expert on Christianity". Because no theologian or Christian academic ever proposed new views or new ideas or novel interpretations... and doing so would totally mean they knew nothing about standard Christianity at all...

No they are not and it clear to the anybody, who isn't an anti Christian nut, that your interpretations are not 'standard' to anybody, but yourself. However, there's little point in debating with you on the topic because you like being ignorant because it gives you an excuse to hate Christians. You remind me of many men I've known who, despite their total ignorance in anything mechanical or electrical related, seem to think they are experts when it's clear they are not. A mere women can't tell them they are wrong because after all, women don't know a thing about mechanics or electronics, so it's pointless to even try. You are the same way, rather you want to believe it or not, your bizarre interpretations are not accepted by most mainstream Christians, but you seem to think they are, despite being told and explained to you, over and over again, that they are not. Amazing how you continue to want to tell Christians how we believe in one breath, while attack Christians who tell you want you believe in another breath. Nothing will ever convenience you that you're wrong, so it's pointless to even try. We should just point out your errors instead and make sure others are fooled by your snake oil.

[Jedidiah]

I think this has caused a lot of confusion for people here. The interpretations of the Bible that I, personally have come to hold after a decade of study and research differ significantly to common interpretations - I personally think that most people are very very very wrong in how they interpret the bible and that commonly Christians significantly misunderstand and misinterpret many many important passages. Though I was raised in pan-standard evangelical churches, my own later biblical and academic research led me to very different interpretations of biblical passages. This seems to greatly confuse people here. They often seem to mistakenly think that because I have my own personal opinion about which interpretation is best that I must not realize or know what the most common interpretation of the passage by other people is. It does not appear to occur to them that I might be not only extremely well aware of the common interpretation, but also aware of several alternative interpretations, and have my own opinions as to which of those interpretations is likely correct and why.

So, as you say in your comment, because "his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians" they seem to think that rules out me being "an expert on Christianity". Because no theologian or Christian academic ever proposed new views or new ideas or novel interpretations... and doing so would totally mean they knew nothing about standard Christianity at all...

So you admit to destroying strawmen.

[Adrift]

I think this has caused a lot of confusion for people here. The interpretations of the Bible that I, personally have come to hold after a decade of study and research differ significantly to common interpretations - I personally think that most people are very very very wrong in how they interpret the bible and that commonly Christians significantly misunderstand and misinterpret many many important passages. Though I was raised in pan-standard evangelical churches, my own later biblical and academic research led me to very different interpretations of biblical passages. This seems to greatly confuse people here. They often seem to mistakenly think that because I have my own personal opinion about which interpretation is best that I must not realize or know what the most common interpretation of the passage by other people is. It does not appear to occur to them that I might be not only extremely well aware of the common interpretation, but also aware of several alternative interpretations, and have my own opinions as to which of those interpretations is likely correct and why.

So, as you say in your comment, because "his interpretations of the Bible are not ones commonly followed or even believed by the majority of Christians" they seem to think that rules out me being "an expert on Christianity". Because no theologian or Christian academic ever proposed new views or new ideas or novel interpretations... and doing so would totally mean they knew nothing about standard Christianity at all...

Well, you know, it doesn't help that you write as though these personal opinions are widely accepted academic views. I think this is the first time I've ever read you admit that you mostly accept far fringe, or self-invented interpretations of the Bible...those that typically align with your own worldview. Congrats to you for owning up to it. Small correction, the interpretations that seem to most often put you in a tizzy on this forum are not Christian interpretations (or misinterpretations as you put it). They are very often, widely accepted, secular interpretations brought forward by Biblical scholars. That they just so happen to align with a lot of views accepted by Christians here doesn't make them "Christian interpretations". I don't think I speak only for myself when I say that there are plenty of things I've learned or have relearned since digging into Biblical scholarship on my own, or have read on this forum over the years. Things that I sometimes found uncomfortable or difficult to accept, but that eventually I worked into my understanding of scripture.

[Terraceth]

I do the same thing, fwiw. Most people here are not EO. I don't figure that I'm going to argue anyone into becoming EO. However, I will do my best to accurately portray EO positions in the hopes that it will help someone. People are watching.

What is EO?