is true debate really possible??

[Eudaimonist]

Long buried in threads with hundreds of posts. Some of those threads are not even here anymore.

So, this is not something that happens often, and not recently?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WoundedDeep]

(emphasis added)
Last time I checked Paul wasn´t a member of CF.

I said the atheists on here. And even though Paul is not a member of CF, that did not prevent some from calling him a possible "mental patient" for believing that his preaching is from God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Such as alluding that Paul, a man of faith, is someone with mental illness.

In what way is that a personal attack against you or anyone else here? Paul isn't here, so we're obviously not attacking him. Why is it considered an "attack" to ponder whether Paul could have had a mental illness?

 

[WoundedDeep]

So, this is not something that happens often, and not recently?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It happens whenever someone with strong faith rebuts their false arguments and accusations.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

It is based on observations. Some on here will go to the extent of calling Christians out for speaking about their personal experiences, try to discredit those experiences however possible, and allude to the fact that perhaps Christians are out of their mind for believing that God is responsible for those experiences. That is personal attack.

i agree, some people do want to be unpleasant and think for some reason Christians are a door mat and won't retaliate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is based on observations. Some on here will go to the extent of calling Christians out for speaking about their personal experiences, try to discredit those experiences however possible, and allude to the fact that perhaps Christians are out of their mind for believing that God is responsible for those experiences. That is personal attack.

Asking you to consider whether there are alternative explanations for those experiences is in no way a personal attack.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It happens whenever someone with strong faith rebuts their false arguments and accusations.

And that has happened so long ago that it just isn't possible for you to find an example?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Asking you to consider whether there are alternative explanations for those experiences is in no way a personal attack.

it is the way some people ask that is the problem usually.

 

[quatona]

It is based on observations. Some on here will go to the extent of calling Christians out for speaking about their personal experiences, try to discredit those experiences however possible, and allude to the fact that perhaps Christians are out of their mind for believing that God is responsible for those experiences. That is personal attack.

Could you show us a few examples in context, please?
Just so we know how you get from your observations to the above described interpretations?

 

[WoundedDeep]

And that has happened so long ago that it just isn't possible for you to find an example?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because I don't spend all my time here debating.

 

[WoundedDeep]

i agree, some people do want to be unpleasant and think for some reason Christians are a door mat and won't retaliate.

We indeed do not retaliate the way they treat us, but we can tear down their false arguments and accusations with the truth.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

In what way is that a personal attack against you or anyone else here? Paul isn't here, so we're obviously not attacking him. Why is it considered an "attack" to ponder whether Paul could have had a mental illness?

because it also infers that anyone who thinks they follow God or can spread the gospel has a mental illness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because I don't spend all my time here debating.

So you are referring to personal attacks that were never made against you and you did not witness because you weren't reading those threads?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I said the atheists on here. And even though Paul is not a member of CF, that did not prevent some from calling him a possible "mental patient" for believing that his preaching is from God.

So when starting this thing about "personal attacks (on here)" you didn´t mean personal attacks on the posters, but personal attacks on people who lived in the distant past?

I just need to find out where you personally draw the fine line between giving one´s opinion openly, and uttering a personal attack. Every person draws this line differently.
You seem to be very sensitive to the point that an open conversation about theistic beliefs is hardly possible without you ending offended.
I don´t like it when people feel offended, but then I don´t like it when the sensitivities of a person prevent me from giving my opinion and discussing the given topic, either.
That´s why I am seeking some clarity here (beyond the unspecific general accusations you keep raising here).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

it is the way some people ask that is the problem usually.

I agree. The phrasing of the question is important as it sets the tone of the conversation. However, it shouldn't be misconstrued as a personal attack either.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

We indeed do not retaliate the way they treat us, but we can tear down their false arguments and accusations with the truth.

amen and we should always do that.

 

[quatona]

Because I don't spend all my time here debating.

Well, you sure spend a lot of time talking about your hurt feelings.
That´s why I was assuming you were interested in having a conversation about this.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

I agree. The phrasing of the question is important as it sets the tone of the conversation. However, it shouldn't be misconstrued as a personal attack either.

it so easily can, if you Love something it is part of you and if that something is attacked or ridiculed it is very personal.
If someone said something about my wife or children i would be very offended, they are not me and it could be taken as not being personal but it touches on my personal choices, beliefs and sensibilities so it is a personal attack.

 

[WoundedDeep]

So when starting this thing about "personal attacks (on here)" you didn´t mean personal attacks on the posters, but personal attacks on people who lived in the distant past?

I just need to find out where you personally draw the fine line between giving one´s opinion openly, and uttering a personal attack. Every person draws this line differently.
You seem to be very sensitive to the point that an open conversation about theistic beliefs is hardly possible without you ending offended.
I don´t like it when people feel offended, but then I don´t like it when the sensitivities of a person prevent me from giving my opinion and discussing the given topic, either.
That´s why I am seeking some clarity here (beyond the unspecific general accusations you keep raising here).

I am sensitive, but more when people are attacking God profusely than when I am the target. Both kinds of attacks offend me, not because the attacks are reactions of ignorance, but because they are reactions of stubborn denial and arrogance. I don't usually react negatively when these kinds of attacks come at the start, but when they continue from the same persons, despite having the truth shown to them that their arguments are nonsensical and false, they offend me.

I have debated countless atheists, and I can tell in a post or two whether they are here trying to learn, or whether they are here trying to be a source of annoyance. Unfortunately, not all are here with the right mentality, and I see debates with such a waste of time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

because it also infers that anyone who thinks they follow God or can spread the gospel has a mental illness.

No it doesn't. You're reading more into it more than is there. (1) If Paul did indeed have a mental illness then this doesn't automatically preclude him from being a genuine messenger of God. To assume that it does is to assume that mental illness automatically discredits someone's claims, which is not the case. It does, however, raise an alternative potential explanation for his experiences. (2) If Paul had a mental illness, it does not follow that everyone else who spreads the gospel must also be mentally ill. I thought that point would go without saying, yet it appears that it needs to be explicitly articulated.