How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (3 Viewers)

[RCon]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

 

[Zow]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

 

[Zow]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

Thanks. I don't see it but I could well have missed it. I saw some comments on liberal and conservative that were deleted. But nothing on white nationalism that I saw. But for sure, if you see something well over the line in the future, please report.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

I haven't looked at every post in detail but my impression was he wasn't the one that pushed it off the rails. I could be wrong.

We never ever want white nationalist bigot comments. That's a given and if anything like that is ever posted, please report it immediately.

Thanks. I believe I had because it was like the second time in my nearly 20 years here that I reported somebody.

I don't understand.

The post you reported on March 17 was https://forums.footballguys.com/thr...ssion-ask-questions-here.802558/post-25277317

This is all a feable attempt to change what the Bible actually says. Jesus said He is the only Way to heaven. Here is another one for you to try to explain away

Acts 4:12 NKJV
[12] Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

That's the "sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted" you're accusing the poster of making?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I like your interpretation better than a literal take, it's a responsibility and requires critical thinking skills to get it right though

Reading the bible with a critical mind literally gets you all the way to Genesis 2 before there are irreconcilable contradictions (the order of creation) where the two authors' accounts differ. But those contradictions are meaningless if you read the stories that the two authors are telling from two different perspectives with two different goals ultimately which provide a fuller picture of God's relationship with creation (Genesis 1) and humanity (Genesis 2). I get that almost everyone takes these stories literally when they first encounter them (including me) and somehow miss these details every time after. But I think it is pretty indicative of the entire bible when within a few pages a literal reading fails, if you pay attention to the details. And it is not likely that this went unnoticed by everyone until just now. Just most everyone.

 

[Mister CIA]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

 

[dkp993]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

 

[nightmare]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

 

[dgreen]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

 

[dkp993]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

 

[RCon]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

But I would let them go to church because that is the religion of my forefathers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

He’s not “leading” the thread. He started it. I’ll disagree as I think there has been some good discussion here.

 

[dgreen]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

I’m not sure what you mean. The uses of “liberal” that I’m referring to are also in the parlance of today.

 

[Paddington]

We can't possibly look at things the same way an all knowing, understanding God would.

If this is true, why doesn't God speak in terms we understand instead of in a way far above our understanding forcing us to make assumptions and interpretations we can't possibly understand? An all powerful God should be able to speak to us directly in a way we can understand in no uncertain terms. And if we're broken, why did God create us in his image and then break us?

He does IF you have the Holy Spirit to open your understanding. The Bible is Spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15, 14-16 KJV
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[14] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. [16] For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Paddington]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

I don't want to suspend people for posting a sincere message about their faith. He does post the same message on other forums. But that's not unexpected. His message is consistent. Most of the repeat instances of the same post here that were locked are because the thread went off the rails. Not because of something he did. I want us to be careful in suspending people and making sure we're as clear as we can on things. As I do think the topic of faith and religion is a good one. And I've learned from the forum in this area.

So, from your perspective, he was not the poster that caused the thread to go off the rails??

I ask out of potential caution for my own activity in this thread as I was one of the posters engaging with him in that thread before the lock so I'm just trying to understand whether his posting or mine/similar posters were the proverbial problem (and, if so, I'll just ignore him proceeding forward even if/when he makes sweeping, white nationalistic comments that are arguably bigoted).

What exactly were the white nationalist bigoted comments you're accusing the poster of?

Pretty sure they were deleted.

They would have been reported. And we can see those posts. Including the deleted posts.

That's a serious accusation.

I’ll let Zow answer your question as I don’t know what he reported. But there were 100% way over the line comments by the OP that happened even after he was warned and had posts deleted.

I do know what he reported. It's the post I quoted above. As he said, it’s one of 2 he’s ever reported.

Most things are reported here that people feel are over the line. There will be a record for even deleted posts.

I want to make sure we have a forum where serious accusations are backed up by actual facts.

joe, If you want a serious and balanced discussion about religion, it is not going to be in a thread lead by Paddington.

Buried in the last thread you locked he posted that "liberals" do not go to heaven.
One of the lasts post in that thread was Paddington's belief was NO other religion was the way to "heaven".

He’s not “leading” the thread. He started it. I’ll disagree as I think there has been some good discussion here

Joe, in response to one of those you just quoted, For the record, I never said that Liberals don't go to heaven as someone said about me. I did say that Jesus Christ is the only Way to heaven because that's what He said. Other religions believe that they are right and that's ok, so why is it wrong for Christians to believe that they ate right?

 

[Paddington]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

His context was unequivocally in the parlance of today.

I’m not sure what you mean. The uses of “liberal” that I’m referring to are also in the parlance of today.

There are Liberal and Conservative Bible Scholars, has nothing to do with Politics. Liberal Scholars tend to allegorize the Scripture and in my opinion use that as a way to change the meaning of it. Conservative Scholars tend to take it more Literally, unless the text specifies that it is an allegory. I believe this to be the correct way of interpreting Scripture. Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is certainly possible he meant “liberal” in a political sense, but it is a word also used when discussing religious beliefs. not that I’m a fan of making sweeping judgments against people for either liberal or conservative religious beliefs, but I am just saying that it’s not necessarily a political comment.

I am confident that liberal/conservative in that thread was not about politics. It is no more of a sweeping judgment that those Christians that
would either reject, reinterpret, and/or de-emphasize the only thing that matters - a belief is Jesus' death and resurrection for the atonement of my sin - is no different from everyone else that is destined for hell. I don't see how expressing that belief should be any more problematic than "we all fall short and are deserving of eternal punishment." I think that most people with any sense of morality and an absence of a belief otherwise would find saying this anything but "being excellent to one another". But for many, probably most Christians sharing this message is the most loving thing they can do. Kind of a dilemma for a board owner/moderator to handle a message offered in love that concurrently insults many.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

God will have a lot of answering to do.

 

[Zow]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

@Joe Bryant

This links to the comments that I inferred to be championing white nationalism and arguably bigoted. I errantly (though in good faith) that I had reported them. I did report an earlier post of his as you point out. I did believe that Paddington was the one that arguably went "off the rails" in that thread and led to its shut down which is why I was initially confused by your statement suggesting Paddington hadn't done anything.

 

[dkp993]

I am confident that liberal/conservative in that thread was not about politics.

I am confident that it was. Was extremely clear at the time. Again, he had been warned multiple times previously to not say the things he was saying. But it’s mute at this point as it’s all gone.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

@Paddington
The Ministry of Pain would like to be on record since you ignored my posts in the other thread

Who wrote the Bible, specifically the New Testament? i've asked this question a few times and it is crickets in here
It's hard to take anyone seriously that will not take the time to learn and understand the history of the weapon they are waving around in the air, yes you use the bible as a weapon
There was one group of people that could actually read and write back then, I think most folks know who I mean

-You can say inspired Word of God or the 4 disciples but none of that holds water in any Christian History course I've ever experienced at a major University
The Hebrews wrote the NT not Christians

-You obviously are a Martin Luther Christian but prior to the 1500s, who controlled the New Testament and how it was spread to others?
The Catholic Church

-The Black Plague might have wiped out half the population but it wiped out 97% of Catholic Priests, you ever hear of Last Rites? Something all folks were entitled to back then
Prior to the Plague, it was highly difficult to become a Catholic Priest but after the plague wiped most of them out, they would take anyone with a set of teeth
The Church starts to slowly decline

-Bibles were only written in Latin during those times and so the smartest guy in every town was the priest, he had to be in order to translate to those who couldn't read or understand it
Imagine trying to build your faith around something that you can't even read and have to rely on someone to give you instruction and guidance on what it says

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?
I understand why you don't post with me, nobody wants to argue with someone who whips out historical facts that go against everything you've been taught in Sunday School

I'm not an atheist, far from it
I also am not capable of putting forth blind faith and that is a requirement for Christians, tough one for me unfortunately

 

[fatness]

It does seem he's definitely set in his opinions and isn't looking to change his mind.

But that's hardly unusual on the forum.

Certainly understand all that Joe. And that’s the point. He keeps saying he wants a “conversation”, but there is not conversation happing (unless of course we agree with exactly everything he says). He wants to tell us what he believes he knows. Nothing more. All I’m saying is own that. I’ve have made no attempt, and won’t, at changing his mind, but let’s call this what it is.

More problematic, in the context of what is supposed to be allowed on these forums, is that he spams the same opinions over and over, repeatedly starting new threads to do the same spamming. As noted, he isn't, and never has been, interested in genuine conversation. He just wants to proselytize. If someone did the same thing hawking a product, they'd be banned.

Understood. As I said a while back, I'm trying to come up with a fair way to handle these. I suppose we could not allow any sort of conversation related to religion. As we did with politics. My hope is we could do better with this than we did with politics. But maybe we can't.

I also want to make sure it's fair to other religions if people have sincere messages.

It takes a bit to get a thoughtful plan together on board stuff and I'm buried with other projects this week. Will try to have something in the near future.

In the meantime, it does seem like there's been some good discussion.

My suggestion, not that you asked for it, would be to allow religious discussion while banning the OP for repeatedly spamming the boards.

I wouldn't even go that far. When this topic is posted again, just delete it without banning OP. That way he's free to post something else instead of the same cut/paste message.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I can't see posts there were deleted to know who posted it, but it seems there was Christian Nationalist stuff in the last thread the OP started in April, according to this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475

@Joe Bryant

This links to the comments that I inferred to be championing white nationalism and arguably bigoted. I errantly (though in good faith) that I had reported them. I did report an earlier post of his as you point out. I did believe that Paddington was the one that arguably went "off the rails" in that thread and led to its shut down which is why I was initially confused by your statement suggesting Paddington hadn't done anything.

That link above https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.816131/post-25343475 is to my post where I said I'd like to drop the Christian Nationalism discussion and that separating Church and State are a very good thing.

This discussion can be useful. But please let's drop the Christian Nationalist tangent which will inevitably be political. Thank you.

Separation of Church and State is a very good thing. Let's leave it at that.

Obviously, Christian Nationalism and White Nationalism are not the same thing. Quick answer from ChatGPT. As always, there can be errors but this is how I understand it.

Christian Nationalism​

Core Idea: The belief that the U.S. should be defined by Christian values, often blending American identity with a particular version of Christianity.

Key Points:

• Sees America as founded by and for Christians.
• Often argues for laws and policies based on conservative Christian principles.
• Can include people of all races, though it's often associated with white evangelical circles.
• Focus is religious identity—“America is a Christian nation”—and political power tied to that belief.

Examples of Christian nationalist ideas:

• Wanting the Ten Commandments in public buildings.
• Opposing church/state separation.
• Believing God has a special plan for America.

---

White Nationalism​

Core Idea: A racial ideology that centers on the belief that white people should maintain dominance in political, cultural, and demographic life.


Key Points:

• Rooted in race, not religion.
• Seeks to preserve "white identity" and often explicitly supports racial segregation or supremacy.
• Can include people who are not religious at all—or even anti-Christian.
• Focus is racial identity—“America is a white nation”—and maintaining power for white people.

Examples of white nationalist ideas:

• Opposing immigration to preserve a white majority.
• Believing in white genetic or cultural superiority.
• Promoting myths of white persecution or “replacement.”

Obviously, they are very different. But they can overlap.

🌫 Where They Overlap​

• In the U.S., some white nationalists wrap their ideology in Christian language to appeal to a broader base.
• Some Christian nationalists adopt ideas that reflect white cultural dominance, even if they don’t talk explicitly about race.
• Both can promote exclusionary or authoritarian politics, but for different root reasons.

---

Important Distinction​

Not everyone who is a devout Christian or proud American is a Christian nationalist. And not every person who values their heritage is a white nationalist. These terms describe specific ideologies, not general beliefs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In my opinion, accusing someone of being a Christian Nationalist and wanting the 10 Commandments in school is radically different from accusing someone of being a White Nationalist and believing in white superiority.

If we make accusations that serious in the future, back them up with the exact quote to support the accusation.

With all that said, please drop the whole Nationalist tangent. There's no way to keep it from politics.

The last page of this thread is also why we killed the PSF.

Please keep it on the original topic and off the accusations and politics.

 

[Paddington]

We need a religion forum…

And then lock it

I do think we've had some genuinely positive discussions in some of the threads. But, yeah, like politics it's basically impossible to expect that all conversations will remain civil and openminded.

The key is to be a truth seeker rather than trying to win an argument.

assuming truth seeking is different than thread seeking, otherwise you'd only have the 1 thread.

I'm all for this thread- but I think the mods should combine the many identical threads paddy has started to consolidate what I'm sure is worthwhile conversation.

also- Paddington- just bump one your other threads. its counterproductive to redo the exact same thread over and over and over when the conversation was already started many times. it's also annoying... but I freely admit that might just be me.

I would have loved to, but they are all locked.

 

[Paddington]

@Paddington
The Ministry of Pain would like to be on record since you ignored my posts in the other thread

Who wrote the Bible, specifically the New Testament? i've asked this question a few times and it is crickets in here
It's hard to take anyone seriously that will not take the time to learn and understand the history of the weapon they are waving around in the air, yes you use the bible as a weapon
There was one group of people that could actually read and write back then, I think most folks know who I mean

-You can say inspired Word of God or the 4 disciples but none of that holds water in any Christian History course I've ever experienced at a major University
The Hebrews wrote the NT not Christians

-You obviously are a Martin Luther Christian but prior to the 1500s, who controlled the New Testament and how it was spread to others?
The Catholic Church

-The Black Plague might have wiped out half the population but it wiped out 97% of Catholic Priests, you ever hear of Last Rites? Something all folks were entitled to back then
Prior to the Plague, it was highly difficult to become a Catholic Priest but after the plague wiped most of them out, they would take anyone with a set of teeth
The Church starts to slowly decline

-Bibles were only written in Latin during those times and so the smartest guy in every town was the priest, he had to be in order to translate to those who couldn't read or understand it
Imagine trying to build your faith around something that you can't even read and have to rely on someone to give you instruction and guidance on what it says

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?
I understand why you don't post with me, nobody wants to argue with someone who whips out historical facts that go against everything you've been taught in Sunday School

I'm not an atheist, far from it
I also am not capable of putting forth blind faith and that is a requirement for Christians, tough one for me unfortunately

The Bible was written by 40 men over a 1600 year period in 3 languages, in different parts of the world and yet it fits together as one book. It has hundreds of prophecies of Christ's first coming including when he would be born where he would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and many other things that are details that no one else could know. David written hundreds of years before they happened and all about the same person Jesus Christ.

The apostles wrote the Bible and the associates of the Apostles. The only exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Jesus Himself.

I'm not afraid to discuss this with you however, your posts are quite lengthy and there are a lot of other people here talking to me at the same time. So if you write a book I may not answer you. It depends on how much time I have.

Protestants believe that the reason why the Catholics only printed Bibles in Latin was so that the priests could control what the masses believed. They were not allowed access to the Bible. Martin Luther is the one who exposed these things. Although I do disagree with many of the things that Martin Luther believed, he took a first good step in the right direction.

It is definitely true that Catholic history directly conflicts with Protestant history.

 

[Paddington]

Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

God will have a lot of answering to do.

God never contradicts his word. And God is the judge. God doesn't have to answer to anyone he is sovereign.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just as you would with any other book or even a legal document. Everything written in Scripture is legal binding in the Court of heaven.

God will have a lot of answering to do.

God never contradicts his word. And God is the judge. God doesn't have to answer to anyone he is sovereign.

I don't think this is really a thought-out answer. Whether or not God needs to answer anyone isn't really the point. Arguing that he wouldn;t suggests that the relationship between God and us is simply one of "might makes right". That it is not that "God works in mysterious ways" that are "beyond our understanding", but just that God does whatever the hell he feels like for whatever reason, whatever whim God might have. Other than a lack of courage why would anyone worship and praise such a being? Why would anyone put faith into such a being?

If God is synonymous with good, then God should have no issue justifying what appear to be crimes that he commits as documented in the bible. And the crimes that his word leads humanity to commit in his name. If God is worth worshipping and praise, then God should have no trouble explaining why the suffering in this world was necessary - at least once we are capable of understanding enough to judge. If God truly wants a relationship with his children, then "because I said so" and "do as I say, not as I do" doesn't seem conductive to such a relationship. Does God want us to respect him out of faith and trust or merely out of fear? Does God want us to love him for real or out of pretend?

And if we take this in another direction. Come judgment day what can I explain to God that God doesn't already know? Doesn't already understand? How about the other way around? Come judgment day the only one that needs to "fill in the gaps" of understanding their actions is God.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

@Paddington
The Ministry of Pain would like to be on record since you ignored my posts in the other thread

Who wrote the Bible, specifically the New Testament? i've asked this question a few times and it is crickets in here
It's hard to take anyone seriously that will not take the time to learn and understand the history of the weapon they are waving around in the air, yes you use the bible as a weapon
There was one group of people that could actually read and write back then, I think most folks know who I mean

-You can say inspired Word of God or the 4 disciples but none of that holds water in any Christian History course I've ever experienced at a major University
The Hebrews wrote the NT not Christians

-You obviously are a Martin Luther Christian but prior to the 1500s, who controlled the New Testament and how it was spread to others?
The Catholic Church

-The Black Plague might have wiped out half the population but it wiped out 97% of Catholic Priests, you ever hear of Last Rites? Something all folks were entitled to back then
Prior to the Plague, it was highly difficult to become a Catholic Priest but after the plague wiped most of them out, they would take anyone with a set of teeth
The Church starts to slowly decline

-Bibles were only written in Latin during those times and so the smartest guy in every town was the priest, he had to be in order to translate to those who couldn't read or understand it
Imagine trying to build your faith around something that you can't even read and have to rely on someone to give you instruction and guidance on what it says

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?
I understand why you don't post with me, nobody wants to argue with someone who whips out historical facts that go against everything you've been taught in Sunday School

I'm not an atheist, far from it
I also am not capable of putting forth blind faith and that is a requirement for Christians, tough one for me unfortunately

The Bible was written by 40 men over a 1600 year period in 3 languages, in different parts of the world and yet it fits together as one book. It has hundreds of prophecies of Christ's first coming including when he would be born where he would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and many other things that are details that no one else could know. David written hundreds of years before they happened and all about the same person Jesus Christ.

The apostles wrote the Bible and the associates of the Apostles. The only exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Jesus Himself.

I'm not afraid to discuss this with you however, your posts are quite lengthy and there are a lot of other people here talking to me at the same time. So if you write a book I may not answer you. It depends on how much time I have.

Protestants believe that the reason why the Catholics only printed Bibles in Latin was so that the priests could control what the masses believed. They were not allowed access to the Bible. Martin Luther is the one who exposed these things. Although I do disagree with many of the things that Martin Luther believed, he took a first good step in the right direction.

It is definitely true that Catholic history directly conflicts with Protestant history.

I'm not going to rebuke every thing you wrote, I'm actually fair when it comes to debate/discussion
I've already made some blistering points and the audience can decide for themselves

But I will zero in on the apostles
Fishermen wrote the Gospels? Associates is a mighty big net you are throwing out to cover your tracks here
What associates did these disciples have when they are denying they even know the man as his trial and sentencing take place
Do you think they ran out and started writing down everything they had learned from the previous 2-3 years with Jesus?
They were hiding and trying to save their own life

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But I will zero in on the apostles
Fishermen wrote the Gospels? Associates is a mighty big net you are throwing out to cover your tracks here
What associates did these disciples have when they are denying they even know the man as his trial and sentencing take place
Do you think they ran out and started writing down everything they had learned from the previous 2-3 years with Jesus?
They were hiding and trying to save their own life

In other words, Acts 4:13? (To be fair, I have previously stated that you need to take Acts with a big grain of salt.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?

Can you unpack this? I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Are you asking from a theological perspective? Or a historical perspective? Are you asking as a Catholic or ex-Catholic?

From a theological perspective does anything really matter to non Catholic Christians other than maybe how well the scripture was preserved? And maybe traditions kept "pure"?

Historically would be a much larger discussion of course. Some for the better, some for the worse.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm going to step out on a limb and get real with our audience

@Joe Bryant sent me a copy of the Case for Christ(long time ago), the book didn't impact me in the same way he did and I've always used that as a guiding light
Maybe the book didn't hit me in the same way it hits others but it opened me up to stop bashing Christians...any of you all ever hear of Saul/Paul? I identify with him

I went thru a lot during the pandemic as did many of you and I was pushed into groups that i never knew I would find comfort in
I went to men's group on the advice of a very good friend I play tennis with, "MOP, you need more love in your life" and I shot him a bird and told him to F off
Several months later I'm in Tuesday Night meetings and eventually i allowed them to witness me although I did it more for them and to make them happy for pouring a lot of time into me

I'm a lost soul that dances to its own beat, you have to accept that going in because I seem to attract the Christians, they love me and you want me in their corner most of the time
Over time though, i found the meetings to be more of victimization than spreading the word. I wanted to hear what people were doing to bring joy to others lives
I already know what I'm good at, raising money for non profits like the Sylvester Cancer Center at UM, oh yeah you bet.
From Cutthroat Capitalist to a Gift Officer in non profit...i know many like to think people who give money to charity are good people but i have news for you...another time perhaps

I don't pray to do good, I try and live it. I have many flaws, just like the rest of you.
I'm vocal, I'm a pretty good speaker and rather than use that for evil or self centered reasons, instead I've tried to apply them to a vertical that helps
I am no angel, far far from it but when the chips are down and you need help you want me right behind you just like my son tells me

I'm passionate and I bleed, I want people to have a purpose and a drive, it helps everyone.
The opening post however IMO is not a reflection of JB and what he wants to project

I had the absolute pleasure over many years of enjoying a friendship with Jeff Tefertiller who may still be writing for FBG, you'll never meet a kinder more understanding man, i didn't deserve to be his friend but he taught me how to move forward and I credit him with my relationship i have now with my son who is 25 and I didn't really get to see him much until he was almost 18
Senior Year of HS he tracked me down and we've been close ever since

Some talk the talk and some walk the walk and I don't care how this sounds, I respect JB and JT and they helped me get out of the deep end of the pool
My posts changed dramatically when my son entered my life, it filed a hole in my heart that is hard to describe.

So please, when you read my vicious posts wanting to get into the teeth of the bible, it's not personal.
I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

But these folks have had an impact and definitely make me rethink how I treat people and what I want the outcomes to be
They've taught me to cloak and dagger myself much better

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm going to step out on a limb and get real with our audience

@Joe Bryant sent me a copy of the Case for Christ(long time ago), the book didn't impact me in the same way he did and I've always used that as a guiding light
Maybe the book didn't hit me in the same way it hits others but it opened me up to stop bashing Christians...any of you all ever hear of Saul/Paul? I identify with him

I went thru a lot during the pandemic as did many of you and I was pushed into groups that i never knew I would find comfort in
I went to men's group on the advice of a very good friend I play tennis with, "MOP, you need more love in your life" and I shot him a bird and told him to F off
Several months later I'm in Tuesday Night meetings and eventually i allowed them to witness me although I did it more for them and to make them happy for pouring a lot of time into me

I'm a lost soul that dances to its own beat, you have to accept that going in because I seem to attract the Christians, they love me and you want me in their corner most of the time
Over time though, i found the meetings to be more of victimization than spreading the word. I wanted to hear what people were doing to bring joy to others lives
I already know what I'm good at, raising money for non profits like the Sylvester Cancer Center at UM, oh yeah you bet.
From Cutthroat Capitalist to a Gift Officer in non profit...i know many like to think people who give money to charity are good people but i have news for you...another time perhaps

I don't pray to do good, I try and live it. I have many flaws, just like the rest of you.
I'm vocal, I'm a pretty good speaker and rather than use that for evil or self centered reasons, instead I've tried to apply them to a vertical that helps
I am no angel, far far from it but when the chips are down and you need help you want me right behind you just like my son tells me

I'm passionate and I bleed, I want people to have a purpose and a drive, it helps everyone.
The opening post however IMO is not a reflection of JB and what he wants to project

I had the absolute pleasure over many years of enjoying a friendship with Jeff Tefertiller who may still be writing for FBG, you'll never meet a kinder more understanding man, i didn't deserve to be his friend but he taught me how to move forward and I credit him with my relationship i have now with my son who is 25 and I didn't really get to see him much until he was almost 18
Senior Year of HS he tracked me down and we've been close ever since

Some talk the talk and some walk the walk and I don't care how this sounds, I respect JB and JT and they helped me get out of the deep end of the pool
My posts changed dramatically when my son entered my life, it filed a hole in my heart that is hard to describe.

So please, when you read my vicious posts wanting to get into the teeth of the bible, it's not personal.
I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

But these folks have had an impact and definitely make me rethink how I treat people and what I want the outcomes to be
They've taught me to cloak and dagger myself much better

Thanks @Ministry of Pain I"m with you in Jeff Tefertiller is an awesome guy. And yes, he still is right here with us on staff. Great guy. Thanks for sharing and thanks for being part of the forums. As you mentioned, this thread isn't "owned" by the OP. They just started it. The discussion is up to us. Thanks to all for being part of that.

 

[Mister CIA]

I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

Preach

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

Preach

What I am trying to say is that I see the Holy Spirit thru leadership with guys like Jeff and JB
I don't really understand most Sunday Morning sermons but I understand when someone does something for you with absolutely no expectations of anything in return
It's not why they do it, they genuinely want you to pay it forward and lead others

If I hadn't gotten to know Joe Bryant then I would not have gotten to know JT, it's almost like the book didn't work so he sent me a disciple/leader to help
JT and I did not talk about the bible much or scripture, he knew better. He brought me to Christ/Bible thru his actions.

And i just try and emulate that when I am around others. JT has a way of making people feel special, he asks them questions he knows they want to talk about.
How good is that to teach young people to get out of their self centered worlds and try to walk in others shoes for a bit?

 

[Psychopav]

I'm going to step out on a limb and get real with our audience

@Joe Bryant sent me a copy of the Case for Christ(long time ago), the book didn't impact me in the same way he did and I've always used that as a guiding light
Maybe the book didn't hit me in the same way it hits others but it opened me up to stop bashing Christians...any of you all ever hear of Saul/Paul? I identify with him

I went thru a lot during the pandemic as did many of you and I was pushed into groups that i never knew I would find comfort in
I went to men's group on the advice of a very good friend I play tennis with, "MOP, you need more love in your life" and I shot him a bird and told him to F off
Several months later I'm in Tuesday Night meetings and eventually i allowed them to witness me although I did it more for them and to make them happy for pouring a lot of time into me

I'm a lost soul that dances to its own beat, you have to accept that going in because I seem to attract the Christians, they love me and you want me in their corner most of the time
Over time though, i found the meetings to be more of victimization than spreading the word. I wanted to hear what people were doing to bring joy to others lives
I already know what I'm good at, raising money for non profits like the Sylvester Cancer Center at UM, oh yeah you bet.
From Cutthroat Capitalist to a Gift Officer in non profit...i know many like to think people who give money to charity are good people but i have news for you...another time perhaps

I don't pray to do good, I try and live it. I have many flaws, just like the rest of you.
I'm vocal, I'm a pretty good speaker and rather than use that for evil or self centered reasons, instead I've tried to apply them to a vertical that helps
I am no angel, far far from it but when the chips are down and you need help you want me right behind you just like my son tells me

I'm passionate and I bleed, I want people to have a purpose and a drive, it helps everyone.
The opening post however IMO is not a reflection of JB and what he wants to project

I had the absolute pleasure over many years of enjoying a friendship with Jeff Tefertiller who may still be writing for FBG, you'll never meet a kinder more understanding man, i didn't deserve to be his friend but he taught me how to move forward and I credit him with my relationship i have now with my son who is 25 and I didn't really get to see him much until he was almost 18
Senior Year of HS he tracked me down and we've been close ever since

Some talk the talk and some walk the walk and I don't care how this sounds, I respect JB and JT and they helped me get out of the deep end of the pool
My posts changed dramatically when my son entered my life, it filed a hole in my heart that is hard to describe.

So please, when you read my vicious posts wanting to get into the teeth of the bible, it's not personal.
I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

But these folks have had an impact and definitely make me rethink how I treat people and what I want the outcomes to be
They've taught me to cloak and dagger myself much better

re: the bolded, have you ever considered any of Strobel's other books? It looks like he has one called "Is God Real" and another called "The Case for Faith". I've never read any of these but I've heard good things.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I just can't achieve blind faith, I've tried and i don't see it as a future option

Preach

What I am trying to say is that I see the Holy Spirit thru leadership with guys like Jeff and JB
I don't really understand most Sunday Morning sermons but I understand when someone does something for you with absolutely no expectations of anything in return
It's not why they do it, they genuinely want you to pay it forward and lead others

If I hadn't gotten to know Joe Bryant then I would not have gotten to know JT, it's almost like the book didn't work so he sent me a disciple/leader to help
JT and I did not talk about the bible much or scripture, he knew better. He brought me to Christ/Bible thru his actions.

And i just try and emulate that when I am around others. JT has a way of making people feel special, he asks them questions he knows they want to talk about.
How good is that to teach young people to get out of their self centered worlds and try to walk in others shoes for a bit?

Thank you MOP. That's kind.

What you're talking about with the "book didn't work but it led to something good" is a good example I think of what I believe God calls us to do in sharing our faith with people. We don't know how it'll turn out. And it's not on us to do it all. All we can do is try and be faithful and share.

There's a good illustration in the bible where Jesus uses a story to make his point:

Matthew 13 (NLT)

Later that same day Jesus left the house and sat beside the lake. A large crowd soon gathered around him, so he got into a boat. Then he sat there and taught as the people stood on the shore. He told many stories in the form of parables, such as this one:

“Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”

I think what he means here is that our job is to be the like the farmer and cast the seeds out. It's not our job to make them grow. Some will and some won't. We're just called to be faithful and do the best we can. I think we're supposed to be smart and not just dump the seeds in the ocean or on the sidewalk. But for the most part, we're just supposed to share. It's comforting to know the "pressure" isn't all on us to do it all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

JT and I did not talk about the bible much or scripture, he knew better. He brought me to Christ/Bible thru his actions.

I think that is how it works more often than not. Christians live a life that others see, appreciate, and want to emulate. And then those others start to explore the things Christian’s believe. And some find themselves Christians.

When Christians are not seen this way, which I fear might be the prevailing sentiment in 21st century America then, well .

We are one with the spirit​

We are one with the lord​

:​

And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love​

​

Or way too often, sadly not.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@Ministry of Pain. You should check out Greg Boyd. You'd like is Writings and approach. "Letters from a Skeptic" would be a good start

 

[Paddington]

@Paddington
The Ministry of Pain would like to be on record since you ignored my posts in the other thread

Who wrote the Bible, specifically the New Testament? i've asked this question a few times and it is crickets in here
It's hard to take anyone seriously that will not take the time to learn and understand the history of the weapon they are waving around in the air, yes you use the bible as a weapon
There was one group of people that could actually read and write back then, I think most folks know who I mean

-You can say inspired Word of God or the 4 disciples but none of that holds water in any Christian History course I've ever experienced at a major University
The Hebrews wrote the NT not Christians

-You obviously are a Martin Luther Christian but prior to the 1500s, who controlled the New Testament and how it was spread to others?
The Catholic Church

-The Black Plague might have wiped out half the population but it wiped out 97% of Catholic Priests, you ever hear of Last Rites? Something all folks were entitled to back then
Prior to the Plague, it was highly difficult to become a Catholic Priest but after the plague wiped most of them out, they would take anyone with a set of teeth
The Church starts to slowly decline

-Bibles were only written in Latin during those times and so the smartest guy in every town was the priest, he had to be in order to translate to those who couldn't read or understand it
Imagine trying to build your faith around something that you can't even read and have to rely on someone to give you instruction and guidance on what it says

-Do modern Christians disown all Catholic history up thru Martin Luther, is that how it works?
I understand why you don't post with me, nobody wants to argue with someone who whips out historical facts that go against everything you've been taught in Sunday School

I'm not an atheist, far from it
I also am not capable of putting forth blind faith and that is a requirement for Christians, tough one for me unfortunately

The Bible was written by 40 men over a 1600 year period in 3 languages, in different parts of the world and yet it fits together as one book. It has hundreds of prophecies of Christ's first coming including when he would be born where he would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and many other things that are details that no one else could know. David written hundreds of years before they happened and all about the same person Jesus Christ.

The apostles wrote the Bible and the associates of the Apostles. The only exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Jesus Himself.

I'm not afraid to discuss this with you however, your posts are quite lengthy and there are a lot of other people here talking to me at the same time. So if you write a book I may not answer you. It depends on how much time I have.

Protestants believe that the reason why the Catholics only printed Bibles in Latin was so that the priests could control what the masses believed. They were not allowed access to the Bible. Martin Luther is the one who exposed these things. Although I do disagree with many of the things that Martin Luther believed, he took a first good step in the right direction.

It is definitely true that Catholic history directly conflicts with Protestant history.

I'm not going to rebuke every thing you wrote, I'm actually fair when it comes to debate/discussion
I've already made some blistering points and the audience can decide for themselves

But I will zero in on the apostles
Fishermen wrote the Gospels? Associates is a mighty big net you are throwing out to cover your tracks here
What associates did these disciples have when they are denying they even know the man as his trial and sentencing take place
Do you think they ran out and started writing down everything they had learned from the previous 2-3 years with Jesus?
They were hiding and trying to save their own life

One of the criteria for a NT book being accepted as part of the Biblical Canon was that it had to be written by an Apostle or an Associate of an Apostle, with the exception of James and Jude who were half brothers of Jesus. Yes they were Fishermen and uneducated, such as Peter, but Peter used a Scribe to pen his books. Not all were were uneducated. Luke was a Doctor for instance. The Associates traveled with the Apostles and probably knew Jesus personally, but were not part of the 12. The first books were written down around 20 years after the events, which was actually a short time for back then. They weren't hiding after the Resurrection, they were bold and expected Christ to come at any moment and set up His Kingdom. They didn't know it would be 2000 years+before He would return. This is aparent from the fact that many years after, when many of the other Jewsish believers did run away and hide, the Disciples were still in Jerusalem. There were also the poor Jews who sold everything because they thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetime.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Readings Today:

Isaiah 65: 1-9;​

I had to read this today. And while the words were fine, trying to find the way to have those words flow was beyond me. This is poetry (so I'm told) in Hebrew. It was anything but to those suffering through my reading.

​

Psalm 22: 19-28; ​

Galatians 3: 23-29;​

Hard for me to comment on this one without getting political. Especially with the opening "welcome" hymn used with it - "May the message be banished, that your love is for the few".

Luke 8: 26-39​

The Luke passage is a reminder that even though the Jews of Jesus day might have had one God, there was still a belief in other divine beings like, in this case demons. It is a tough passage for my modern sensibilities. I am sure that 2000 years ago "demons" were literal, including holding conversations and negotiating with Jesus. Today demons here seem more figurative, ancient way to describe mental illness. But I can get past that.

The struggle I have is with what I assume was a community's primary source of protein being sent over the cliff for reasons I don't understand. It isn't necessary with my modern way of looking at what is going on. What am I missing? Maybe back in the day the place had meaning? But in 2025 the actual place is unknown, yet alone what it might have suggested. "Gerasenes" could have been people living in Gerasa, but that was located in the wrong place. Some versions using "Gadarenes," for Gadara. This was a Greek city so maybe? Close, but not quite located as described? A late choice (3rd century) that made the most sense geographically is Gergesa. So maybe punishing the locals concurrently with healing the man meant something in 85 AD, it just seems wrong to me in 2025.

Now if we "harmonize" the gospels and combine this story with Mark then this healed guy must have done a good job of spreading the word of what God had done such that Jesus was greeted with large crowds when he returns to the region later. But doing that rejects what Mark and Luke each say and substitute it with something else. A new gospel! So, I don't really know what to do with this passage other than Jesus' brief interaction with one person changes a whole lot for not only that person, but an entire community. Kind of an early economic lesson on externalities.

ETA: In rereading this a day later, I do realize that I didn't mention that I considered that the herd loss was unclean swine. Which maybe helps explain why they were expendable to Jesus. But even so the locals weren't keeping them just because. They had value to the community.

Readings, June 29:

1 Kings 19: 15-16, 19-21; - Elijah finds Elisha. The gospels are from Luke who in many ways presents Jesus in similar terms as to how prophets were presented.​

Psalm 16; - Keep me safe​

Galatians 5: 1, 13-25; - All commandments can be fulfilled with one.​

Luke 9: 51-62 - This goes to why early Christians thought the Kingdom of God was coming any minute, both Jesus (here) and Paul said as much.​

 

[Paddington]

Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.

'Sitting ducks': Gunman shoots up Sunday church service, gets run over, shot and killed * WorldNetDaily * by Joe Kovacs

'Christianity is UNDER ATTACK. Anyone saying otherwise is lying'

www.wnd.com

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Church attacked over the weekend. Did anyone hear about this? The short guy in the picture was me. I was in Church Sunday and a man with an automatic weapon tried to kill everyone in the Church.

'Sitting ducks': Gunman shoots up Sunday church service, gets run over, shot and killed * WorldNetDaily * by Joe Kovacs

'Christianity is UNDER ATTACK. Anyone saying otherwise is lying'

www.wnd.com

Yes.

Police identify Michigan church shooting suspect as man who attended with his mother

Wayne police identified the heavily-armed church shooter as Brian Browning, 31.

www.usatoday.com

Sorry that this happened to you. Sympathies for the mother of the shooter. Hope the condition of the security guard is being accurately reported. Hope the children (and adults) are getting the support they need. Hope your choice of links doesn't get this thread shut down.