Yellum Notnef

You might want to take it easy with the "scripture talk" because that last bit makes you sound a little gay.

Just letting you know how this sounds to non-cult members.

L. Noctivagans

Jesus is the only savior who puts his male followers in a wedding dress and marries them.

Is the marriage consumated?

ybnormal

ybnormal said:
This is my personal conviction, in defiance of the xians' bigoted charge that as a nonxian, I am morally bankrupt and incapable of good works, who in the same breath, hypocritically add something about the uselessness of good works.

Christianity = Mass Confusion


Rad:
I said "the law" was useless I believe.

You know, Rad, in the last 24 hours, I thought I was witnessing signs of you finally turning over a new leaf with some of your "debating tactics", but noooooooooooooooooooo, you continue to make these baseless assertions, not only about what others say, but what you have said yourself.

This is precisely what I meant by "the perceived draw" that you, being a mediocre person, will always settle for... instead of YOU checking what YOU said before denying it, you go ahead and deny it, in hopes that no one else will take the time to prove you wrong, and if no one will DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU, then you have that "perceived draw" by simply making a "baseless assertion" in 8 little words, as in, I said "the law" was useless I believe.

You did that TWICE, in this same post, this morning... you have not changed anything regarding your "debating tactics" with those meaningless near-apologies.


Er, you are the one who made the general statement that atheists have more integrity than Christians, (as groups). In fact you said it was a "no brainer."

How many more times are you going to mischaracterize what I said? How many more times will I have to DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU, by cutting and pasting and explaining what I said? Again, you only hope that I will get tired of doing YOUR WORK and finally let it go, and at that point, you will have your "perceived draw".

Repeating!!!
I DID NOT make a "general statement" that Atheists have more integrity than Christians, and you know full well that I DID NOT. I made a precisely worded, well reasoned charge that you have NEVER tried to prove wrong, because you can't or won't. Nooooooooooo, it suits Rad's "debating tactics" much better to be able to continue to mischaracterize it over and over and over and over, hoping I will get tired of doing what I am being forced to do right this very second.

And THAT, Rad, is exactly why you have no credibility here... it does not and never did have anything to do with you being a xian in a den of biased Atheists. It only has to do with the fact that you have absolutely nothing with which to make ANY case, so you have to MAKE STUFF UP. If this is clearly immoral to a bunch of godless heathens, then why is it not clearly immoral to a bunch of god fearing xians?

And THAT, Rad, is exactly why you will hide behind folks like me if and whenever YOUR Judgement Day arrives. If your Jesus is half the man you say he is, I have NO FEAR that he will shame YOU into submission for the dirty deeds you have pulled on this forum alone.

And on top of ALL THAT, in that same post, you go and insert a little smilie bumping into a wall, as tho it is I, who just won't get it. Thank you! I think you alone have changed the meaning of that smilie, and from now on I'll refer to it "the hypocrite smilie".

Peace, my friend!

ybnormal

Since it is obvious that Sabine can't see MY words, OR, that Sabine STILL has not read the 2 latest threads in question, will someone else kindly retype that which I based my "xian bigotry by default" argument on and PM it to her, or call her on the phone and tell her what I said?

Is she not aware that by parroting Rad's repetitious "debating tactics" that she makes all my points for me?

And folks wonder why it is that I try to put every xian I encounter in the same vein...

Radorth

That is what I said all right. Thank you. I was talking about how nothing works for gangmembers except such teaching, including the uselessness of good works to earn salvation. This seems rather obvious and you have heard it many times.

You are using it in a different sense, of whether you are a "good" person or not. You make it sound like I think good works are useless in general. I think you knew that, so your debating tactics haven't changed. Yours are apparently holier than mine, I'm beginning to realize, though I have never felt tinge of conscience about mine. No I won't change "tactics" other than to read and post more carefully as I said.

I suspect your definition of bad "debating tactics " would be applied liberally to anyone who argues with you. You know it's just amazing how righteous some skeptics are. I'm tearing down my photo of mother Teresa, so please post yours.

Now if you don't mind, lets have a look at your original statement about atheists having more integrity than Christians. I attempted to find it by searching user name, and word, and it does not show up. Perhaps you like your loyal fans to see it in black and white once more. I must have had my old glasses on.

Rad

Radorth

I don't believe this is your original post but that's OK.

I guess we're all hypocrites by default.

There are other examples of your piggeonholing. preaching and getting way off topic, which I will find and post later, so save the holy talk about "debating tactics."

I never claimed my "tactics" were any better than the average atheist here. In fact I said I was simply holding up a mirror much of the time.

Rad

ybnormal

Rad said:
That is what I said all right. Thank you. I was talking about how...

There you go, dancing off in another direction again. It matters not what you were taking about when you originally said it.

What I responded to, and the only issue HERE and NOW, which you conveniently omitted in your response, is whether you had previously said...

"something about the uselessness of good works.

So, you either said...

the uselessness of good works

as I quoted you,

OR, as you asserted,

I said "the law" was useless I believe.

That is ALL that I contested here. This IS a thread regarding problems with Radorth's debating tactics, not whether some LA gang member gets on his knees for you or not.

hezekiah jones

nm

Toto

If Rad becomes more careful in quoting and posting, it will be a welcome improvement. Rad - I don't think you are holding up a mirror to anyone, except perhaps a sterotype in your own mind.

And Rad - do you have any verifiable statistics about Los Angeles gang members changing their ways under some kind of religious tutelage? Given the density of churches in LA, I would expect to see some improvement in the murder rates if that were the case, but they have just gone up.

ybnormal

Rad:
Yeah were all hypocrites by default.

This is at least the third time now that you have brought up this paragraph for taunting.

You have once again declined to disprove the reasoning behind my conclusion, or even the conclusion itself.

You only continue to taunt it, again and again.

The last time that (I know of) you brought it up, you had totally mischaracterized it again, over on the New Take on Separation thread, where I responded, in part...
Of your comments after that post, I quoted you and responded as follows...

Rad: (December 29, 2002 11:15 AM)
Rather than getting into a semantics war, I think I will just let the readers decide.

I'm sure my assertion that it is a "mixed bag" will not go over their heads.

yb: (December 31, 2002 02:16 PM)
Fine! I'll take that as a complete withdrawal.


To that finality, you never responded, on that thread, that I could find.

THEN, today, (January 4, 2003 11:17 AM) on this thread, you said...

I also made the clear unequivocal assertion that in the case of "integrity" it was a "mixed bag."

...making it appear that I had never challenged your exact "assertion" with my, Fine! I'll take that as a complete withdrawal, which you have totally evaded.

Worse, instead of honestly quoting yourself, you completely rewrite the history of your simple assertion into a clear unequivocal assertion that (ybnormal's) case of "integrity" it was a "mixed bag."

THEN you used that, during a totally unrelated debate, to add that, (ybnormal) made the general statement that atheists have more integrity than Christians, (as groups). which you used as an excuse to rerererepost the same paragraph, just so you could taunt it again.
Which brings us full circle to my first words of this post, in response to your above taunt...

This is at least the third time now that you have brought up this paragraph for taunting. You have once again declined to disprove the reasoning behind my conclusion, or even the conclusion itself. You only continue to taunt it again and again.

All that Rad, to evade the finality of my I'll take that as a complete withdrawal challenge, so you could go to other threads like this one and use your rewritten history again.

That's what you do Rad, you hit and run. This is precisely what I and others mean by "Rad's disingenuous debating tactics", and that is precisely why I accused you of "evasive tactics" and that is why this Some problems with Radorth thread was started. Here...
Full circle indeed!

Again!