Christians and Atheists online.

[Flannery]

The think I notice most strongly about Christian BBS and Atheist BBS sites is that Christians never seem much to bother going over and trolling the Atheist's BBS. I can understand why, because I've seen Atheist's BBS systems before, and they are dry. Christians don't seem to bother trolling Pagan BBS sites either, but sign into any Christian program, and a long lively forum on Beast mysteries, Conspiracies, and for the serious witchfinder, modern psychiatry, always exists, meaning that the Christian sites are watching the Pagan chat rooms. But not the atheist's chat rooms.

Those arid and boring atheist chatters are dull. One is like an anti Newtonian protestant, you go in there and they tell each other how great they are at calculus and physics, leaving out the author's substantial work on the world (by which he meant eastern people in the Bible but not of Jewish faith, like Xerxes and Derius, or Nebuchadnezzar).

What I have against Atheist sites is their incompleteness. They're always big on math and science, math and chemistry at all times, with a lot of artistic opinions centered on modern theatre, especially really expensive new releases down in the 21+ drinking cinema. Funnily enough, they're not who discusses the New Physics of Einstein, relativity or quantum theory, that's always in either the Sci Fi Book Club or the Buddhist Meditation Center.

 

[Lynx]

Take a tip from Jeremiah 23:28. Ignore them. What does the chaff matter to the wheat?

 

[Flannery]

Take a tip from Jeremiah 23:28. Ignore them. What does the chaff matter to the wheat?

They're suppressing the first half on the verse. Newton has to have gotten his book about the present world condition of things is a dream or even a vision. If nothing else, it is a book about dreams and prophecy, as is his tract on Daniel and Revelation, both of which are on Bible prophecy. The two books expostulate the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream, I'm only trying to be sober about the serious subject. I know prophecy is lofty and is only the prevue of ordained people in that position, but if Nebuchadnezzar can have a prophetic and visionary experience, it must be essentially open season. And the first half of your verse says, "Let the prophet who has a dream recount his dream; let him who has my word speak my word truthfully!" First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and all thereon attending and subtending to, you know.

 

[Eli1]

What is this topic about?
Internet traffic?

 

[Flannery]

What is this topic about?
Internet traffic?

What is this topic about?
Internet traffic?

It's about the Federal Communications Commission and the First Amendment, focused on laws respecting free speech and the establishment of religion. The major difference between an atheist and a Christion, seen only online and not face to face, is that the Christian communicator will more often call on the free exercise right in amendment one, the atheist on freedom of speech. An occultist wants to argue amendment four.

 

[Eli1]

It's about the Federal Communications Commission and the First Amendment, focused on laws respecting free speech and the establishment of religion. The major difference between an atheist and a Christion, seen only online and not face to face, is that the Christian communicator will more often call on the free exercise right in amendment one, the atheist on freedom of speech. An occultist wants to argue amendment four.

Oooh I see.
Yes, I agree with you. This is a concept called “safe spaces“ and it varies from site to site depending on who the owner is. And it affects everyone.
‘For example with this forum I am impressed at the level of administration because they allow a lot of stuff (some crazy) which other sites might not allow. Atheist or theist.
‘I also used to run many sites myself during decades and I’ve reasoned that ultimate freedom is better than any restrictions because we are free willed creatures.

A recent example of this saga is the Twitter takeover by Musk. The left had essentially created an echo chamber. Musk destroyed that.
So, not much we can do about “safe spaces” since it’s an ongoing thing in this life. It has ups and downs.

 

[Lynx]

It's about the Federal Communications Commission and the First Amendment, focused on laws respecting free speech and the establishment of religion. The major difference between an atheist and a Christion, seen only online and not face to face, is that the Christian communicator will more often call on the free exercise right in amendment one, the atheist on freedom of speech. An occultist wants to argue amendment four.

They want to argue those, but I'd rather argue that you shouldn't argue with any of them. Leave 'em alone to stew in their own juice.

They're suppressing the first half on the verse.

The concept remains sound, and is backed up multiple times in the Bible. Remember "pearls before swine?"

The two books expostulate the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream, I'm only trying to be sober about the serious subject.

Expostulate? The two books argue vehemently with the statue?

Are you sure you didn't mean elaborate? Or perhaps expatiate? Elucidate?

 

[tourist]

Are you sure you didn't mean elaborate? Or perhaps expatiate? Elucidate?

I'm trending towards elucidate.

 

[Lynx]

I'm trending towards elucidate.

I also, but then I never read those books. Maybe they ARE expostulating.

 

[Cameron143]

I'm trending towards elucidate.

Now I can officially say I know someone who is trending.

 

[maxwel]

Hmmm.... I never visit any atheist websites to talk to atheists.

I already talk to plenty of atheists on Christian websites... who show up to disrupt things for laughs while we're trying to counsel people with actual problems.

.

 

[Eli1]

Hmmm.... I never visit any atheist websites to talk to atheists.

I already talk to plenty of atheists on Christian websites... who show up to disrupt things for laughs while we're trying to counsel people with actual problems.

.

Seriously? You? I have a hard time believing that.
You don’t have any atheists friends in real life either? I think you’re a natural debating atheists.
You should try it.

 

[Flannery]

They want to argue those, but I'd rather argue that you shouldn't argue with any of them. Leave 'em alone to stew in their own juice.


The concept remains sound, and is backed up multiple times in the Bible. Remember "pearls before swine?"


Expostulate? The two books argue vehemently with the statue?

Are you sure you didn't mean elaborate? Or perhaps expatiate? Elucidate?

Both. That's why it takes a long time to figure those dream psychoanalysts out. There are two ways that people receive spiritual insight in the Bible, by vision or in dreams. I don't know what the difference is, but the book definitely makes a point of having two words, dream and vision. That part would be expostulated, because it looks like there's no other difference than how the people get the information. It must come from two different sources, it has to. Dreams happen while Nebuchadnezzar or Pharoh and his court are asleep, but when the Bible means vision, there's always an Angel in the story, or Jesus appears personally to John the Baptist. That's an aspect of it which one expostulates, source of either dream or vision. the contents of a dream could be elucidated, the evil kings tend not to remember them or if they do, they never seen to have the interpretation. Visions are obviously from God or Jesus or via the angels, that's not something to seek to have elucidated, that's an actionable item. Someone else's vision already recorded in the Holy Canon can be elucidated for you by your teacher or your pastor, but your own, if you saw an angel and the Angel was really there you'd do something about it; something would happen. A dream I think would be safe enough to just forget or ignore, but then I'm not in the Bible or a practicing Freudian analyst. A true vision as described is spiritual and real enough that anyone who had one would follow it.

 

[Flannery]

Oooh I see.
Yes, I agree with you. This is a concept called “safe spaces“ and it varies from site to site depending on who the owner is. And it affects everyone.
‘For example with this forum I am impressed at the level of administration because they allow a lot of stuff (some crazy) which other sites might not allow. Atheist or theist.
‘I also used to run many sites myself during decades and I’ve reasoned that ultimate freedom is better than any restrictions because we are free willed creatures.

A recent example of this saga is the Twitter takeover by Musk. The left had essentially created an echo chamber. Musk destroyed that.
So, not much we can do about “safe spaces” since it’s an ongoing thing in this life. It has ups and downs.

I've seen those signs on a lot of doors in Seattle. It's to do with the Police, some cops are no less activist than an attorney at law. The difference is, and this is what makes it unfair, that a Christian who is practicing is exercising his practice of religion when he studies, debates, or socializes online or in person. Atheists don't practice religion by definition, so they can get sniping at us and claim that we violated their freedom of speech, when as believers were following the expression clause and using disciplined terminology and following church bylaws. If you watch Hitchens vs Blair for example, the atheist is trying to trace a fractal like explosion of dialectics related to creation origin stories, which are heretical to a mainstream Christian. When Blair appeals to scripture as a single source of quotation, Hitchens (any atheist) commits the rhetorical ad homonym assault on Blair's belief by claiming that the Christian appealed fallaciously to authority. Hitchens by contrast is repeating folkloric beliefs without textual citation at all and says that he hasn't committed the same fallacy. It drives the more sober and serious Bible scholars farther into the margins, unless they're also hyperpolitical they can't get a minute alone for private prayer. Then other denominations trolls come along and post that they've found a conspiracy theory lurking under every other steeple.

I'm just a registered voter. You know, one of those overly educated liberals who reads the United States Constitution?

 

[maxwel]

Seriously? You? I have a hard time believing that.
You don’t have any atheists friends in real life either? I think you’re a natural debating atheists.
You should try it.

Hey Eli, hope you've been well.

I think there's a time and place for debate, and I try to be more prudent than I used to be.
I really don't visit atheist websites.
I also don't go out back and bang my head on a brick wall.
There are just certain things I don't do.
: )

Seriously, I just think we should be prudent in how we discuss things, and picking the times and places.
The book of Proverbs gives a lot of insight into this.

Although, in apologetics, we want to give a clear and unassailable case, the fact still remains that it's not a contest.
We can't think of it in that way.
We should know the facts, know the evidence, know the arguments... but then choose our methods carefully.
There's a person there, made in the image of God, with a soul.
So what do we do with that particular person?
Do I trap him in a logical conundrum, and humiliate him in front of his friends?
Do I present that same argument but do it in private?
Do I take some time and make friends with him first?
There are all kinds of options.
Jesus dealt with people in all different ways, at different times.... and for different reasons.


Have a great weekend brother.

.

 

[Lynx]

I've seen those signs on a lot of doors in Seattle. It's to do with the Police, some cops are no less activist than an attorney at law. The difference is, and this is what makes it unfair, that a Christian who is practicing is exercising his practice of religion when he studies, debates, or socializes online or in person. Atheists don't practice religion by definition, so they can get sniping at us and claim that we violated their freedom of speech, when as believers were following the expression clause and using disciplined terminology and following church bylaws. If you watch Hitchens vs Blair for example, the atheist is trying to trace a fractal like explosion of dialectics related to creation origin stories, which are heretical to a mainstream Christian. When Blair appeals to scripture as a single source of quotation, Hitchens (any atheist) commits the rhetorical ad homonym assault on Blair's belief by claiming that the Christian appealed fallaciously to authority. Hitchens by contrast is repeating folkloric beliefs without textual citation at all and says that he hasn't committed the same fallacy. It drives the more sober and serious Bible scholars farther into the margins, unless they're also hyperpolitical they can't get a minute alone for private prayer. Then other denominations trolls come along and post that they've found a conspiracy theory lurking under every other steeple.

I'm just a registered voter. You know, one of those overly educated liberals who reads the United States Constitution?

So... Basically this is a thread to complain about how unfair people are toward christians? That's all I'm getting here so far.

 

[Flannery]

The most important point about atheists is that all of them have consciously decided to be atheists. If you know what you're rejecting, and just have all kinds of defenses against the beliefs of someone who has actually been a doctrinal butthead, that's one thing. If a "Christian" attack you, just defend yourself. A lot of people I know actually mistake me for an atheist, but that's just because of a combination of factors, one I studied their specific religion which I found illogical or even contrary to certain aspects and cases at law, and second, I never try to enter into theological disputes with loud people, because my religious style is much more private than theirs. That happens a lot, and I've personally met a lot of less literate people who I know ran afoul of a cult, but who for some reason couldn't access or didn't think to access the United States Code of case laws to directly contradict their rights to do some specific abusive thing in the course of religious practice.

You have to really watch out for surface catalysis practitioners in law libraries, they're even worse than people who argue over their church status without ever ponying up and sowing what kind of evangelism, teaching or preaching they have.

Some people are career conspiracy theorists, and while I'm sure that competition between churches for baptisms and members id considered the norm, they get in the way of researchers who report to crime scene investors rather than to a lay minister's church library. Just saying.

 

[Eli1]

So... Basically this is a thread to complain about how unfair people are toward christians? That's all I'm getting here so far.

Yeah that’s all I’m getting too.

 

[Eli1]

@maxwel i trust that you already know what you’re doing and after being on this earth for these many years, I also have my methods too which remain personal and vary from situation to situation.

 

[Flannery]

I'm just chatting in miscellaneous. I've been to other sites, sorry, should I say a rosary?