Moral Support

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96690

Give me some moral support, guys:)

EDIT: Also this is a first class look at the sheep that get me so ticked off all the time:)

[JK/SEA]

nice job so far. Looks to me like you throat punched this ...ahem..'mis-guided' ......................person.

plus rep

[Christian Liberty]

nice job so far. Looks to me like you throat punched this ...ahem..'mis-guided' ......................person.

plus rep

I'm sure I'll get more.

Thank you though:) I'm glad to know this forum has my back, at least sometimes:p

[JK/SEA]

just curious...this is a Christian Forum you're a member of?

[Christian Liberty]

just curious...this is a Christian Forum you're a member of?

Primarily yes, but its not limited to Christians. I'm "Christian Liberty" over there.

[JK/SEA]

Primarily yes, but its not limited to Christians. I'm "Christian Liberty" over there.

ok...yeah, don't make me go there anymore. Other than you, i find people like the ones you're debating to be very repulsive when it comes to Military worship.

Keep at it. You're tearing them up.

I'm outta there.

[Christian Liberty]

ok...yeah, don't make me go there anymore. Other than you, i find people like the ones you're debating to be very repulsive when it comes to Military worship.

Yep.


Keep at it. You're tearing them up.

Thanks:) +rep.


I'm outta there.

I'd love to see you join me. A tag-team partner would be nice:) (I'm not the only anti-militarist person over there, but there are only a couple).

[Snew]

I surfed around that site a little bit. Infuriating stuff, especially from a "Christian" place... :(

[JK/SEA]

I surfed around that site a little bit. Infuriating stuff, especially from a "Christian" place... :(

yep...

and Freedom Fanatic is like an adult in a nursery school.

[Christian Liberty]

I surfed around that site a little bit. Infuriating stuff, especially from a "Christian" place... :(

Most of them aren't Christians, and I say that because of gospel-related issues, not this stuff. Most of them are Mid-Acts Dispensationalists who go so far in their dispensationalism that they believe the OT Jews were saved through a different gospel that we are saved through today, that Jesus preached a different gospel than Paul, and other damnable heresies. Not to mention Open Theism... their puny "god" can't even see into the future.

And then of course there's the military worship.

I'd love to see Sola_Fide in that place for forty-eight hours. I'd love to see their reactions:)

There are some solid people there, though, even though most of them aren't. Several Ron Paul people if you know where to look for them.

yep...

and Freedom Fanatic is like an adult in a nursery school.

Thanks:)

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3668293&postcount=12

I wonder if she'll actually even try to defend this or if she'll just get mad at me.

[Christian Liberty]

Haha... I was reported here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96691

I mean, I get philosophically that its a private forum and they can do what they want, but nonetheless, there's something ironic about trying to silence someone who says the troops don't fight for our freedoms, don't you think?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm banned for three days from TOL now. I can't read the PMs that tell me why until its over, but I'm almost certain it had something to do with my comments.

In my defense, I did mock the forum admin for his comments about the US military, which I didn't expect to come without some sort of punishment, even over there.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it's interesting that self-proclaimed "Christians' " debate style tends to be based on ad hominem attacks and generally avoiding substance. :/ How disappoint.

[Christian Liberty]

Me (CL) or the peeps I was debating with?

[RJB]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96690

Give me some moral support, guys:)

EDIT: Also this is a first class look at the sheep that get me so ticked off all the time:)

I'd actually like to be on your side for a change, but I'm on too many of these argument forums already. Good job!

[JK/SEA]

don't worry about it.

[Christian Liberty]

There are a lot of people here who are way better debaters than me that agree with me on this. If one or two of you would come over with me maybe we could make a difference there, or at least encourage some other liberty people to come out of hiding.

[Henry Rogue]

Looks like you're banned over there. I don't know how anyone finds the time to visit more than one forum. One is enough for me, although I did join RevBox when RPF was down.

[Christian Liberty]

Looks like you're banned over there. I don't know how anyone finds the time to visit more than one forum. One is enough for me, although I did join RevBox when RPF was down.

Ban only lasts three days.

Being 18 helps with time:p

[shane77m]

Man that thread depressed me. FF you seem to be holding your own. That Doormat guy seemed to have his head on straight.

[Tywysog Cymru]

From the few visits I've made there, I have a hard time believing that Culture Warrior guy is serious.

[Henry Rogue]

Ban only lasts three days.

Being 18 helps with time:p I was to busy chasing Women when I was Eighteen, but no one I knew had a computer back then.

[RJB]

Man that thread depressed me. FF you seem to be holding your own.

I remember in 2001 after 9/11, on most the forums I visited (I was into primitive skills/survival/homesteading) were almost 90% for any war. I was usually the lone guy against it. Now adays those site are 90% against. It's been interesting watching some of those guys slowly change. It blows my mind that you can still see forums where that "thinking" predominates.

FF, you might not get them today, but you'll plant a kernel. Ask them questions they can't answer, and then pray. :)

[RJB]

I was to busy chasing Women when I was Eighteen, but no one I knew had a computer back then.

When I was 18 people with computers got beat up.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Most people can't even get past first level discourse, that of defining terms. Probably explains why so many people don't even bother reading the simplest of contracts.

Most people could not give you an overview definition of freedom, even if you gave them time to think about it. Forum members are probably a little better than the average person, but their standard of freedom is going to much lower than yours anyway. Your basically debating people who think freedom is choosing from a wide variety of cereals in a 60' long grocery aisle.

[Christian Liberty]

Man that thread depressed me. FF you seem to be holding your own. That Doormat guy seemed to have his head on straight.

Doormat is a total pacifist, so he's even more "radical" than me in that regard, but yes, he's one of the best posters on there.

shane, you should join over there. We'd have another libertarian AND another Calvinist, that would be awesome!! You too, Celt.


From the few visits I've made there, I have a hard time believing that Culture Warrior guy is serious.

Oh, yeah. I dare you to post in his thread, he WILL call you a pedophile by the end, especially if you claim to be a libertarian. And at one point he was asked what the gospel was and he said "I've answered this before... believing that the family, church, and civil government were ordained for the benefit of mankind." He now denies that he said this, but he did. The CATHOLIC who asked him that question figured out he was a false professor at this point (Note that I in no way mean to imply that the Catholic who identified him as such is saved). There's a poster on there who (despite this) I'm friends with on the forum, he actually supports the death penalty for homosexuality yet STILL believes aCW is a nuthead. There are only a handful of posters who don't think he's an idiot, to my understanding.

He absolutely hates me for exposing him as a fraud, of course.

[Christian Liberty]

Most people can't even get past first level discourse, that of defining terms. Probably explains why so many people don't even bother reading the simplest of contracts.

Most people could not give you an overview definition of freedom, even if you gave them time to think about it. Forum members are probably a little better than the average person, but their standard of freedom is going to much lower than yours anyway. Your basically debating people who think freedom is choosing from a wide variety of cereals in a 60' long grocery aisle.

If that's the case, how would they lose that freedom if it wasn't for the military?;)

What freedoms are they defending?

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

[Miss Annie]

What's really sad is to see how people talk to each other. What the heck happened to being able to debate facts without hurling insults and character assassinations? Sad, sad, sad.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If that's the case, how would they lose that freedom if it wasn't for the military?;)

What freedoms are they defending?

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

I guess you're saying that people would actually gain freedom without such state interventions, and I will certainly agree. The people with whom you are debating are saying just the opposite. You'd really have to start at the most elementary level to make that case with such people. You and I know it's really not that hard, but it makes most people's head hurt.

[RJB]

If that's the case, how would they lose that freedom if it wasn't for the military?;)

Answer: the 2nd amendment!

Neocons are such hypocritical idiots. I know. I was once one.

The founders were against standing armies. This is one of the reasons for the 2nd. An armed citizenry could be rallied at a moment's notice. Now with the most paranoid, excessively armed government in 135+ countries that neocons support, liberals have the (somewhat) valid argument that with our strong army, we don't need the 2nd.

These same neocon idiots who want to arm the government are also the same ones who say we need to arm ourselves against the government tyranny. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Answer: the 2nd amendment!

Neocons are such hypocritical idiots. I know. I was once one.

The founders were against standing armies. This is one of the reasons for the 2nd. An armed citizenry could be rallied at a moment's notice. Now with the most paranoid, excessively armed government in 135+ countries that neocons support, liberals have the (somewhat) valid argument that with our strong army, we don't need the 2nd.

These same neocon idiots who want to arm the government are also the same ones who say we need to arm ourselves against the government tyranny. :rolleyes:
Not even "somewhat". I reckon that's only ~20% valid. The modern "left liberals" have this odd tendency to be extremely naive WRT this issue. The point of article II is to allow people not only to defend against foreigners and run of the mill thugs, but to defend against a tyrannical regime domestically. (we owe a great debt to the Anti-Fedreralists for seeing this and the numerous other flaws in the constitution and subsequently authoring the BoR)

[heavenlyboy34]

What's really sad is to see how people talk to each other. What the heck happened to being able to debate facts without hurling insults and character assassinations? Sad, sad, sad.
I think they forgot to read the red letter text in their bibles, as well as most of the epistles. :/ :(

[RJB]

Not even "somewhat". I reckon that's only ~20% valid. The modern "left liberals" have this odd tendency to be extremely naive WRT this issue. The point of article II is to allow people not only to defend against foreigners and run of the mill thugs, but to defend against a tyrannical regime domestically. (we owe a great debt to the Anti-Fedreralists for seeing this and the numerous other flaws in the constitution and subsequently authoring the BoR)

What I was saying is that neocons clamor for an all powerful government to fight against every paranoid dream imaginable-- that is totally against what the Founders envisioned, and then liberals point out that owning an AR-15 isn't effective against the armored personal transports they are handing out to police like candy.

(neo)Liberals = strong gov (Army)/weak 2nd = tyranny.

Neocons = strong gov/strong second = civil war.

Libertarians = weak gov/strong 2nd = freedom.

And libertarians are called crazy :confused:

[Snew]

I'd take getting the ban as a compliment. Congrats, good sir! :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

What I was saying is that neocons clamor for an all powerful government to fight against every paranoid dream imaginable-- that is totally against what the Founders envisioned, and then liberals point out that owning an AR-15 isn't effective against the armored personal transports they are handing out to police like candy.

(neo)Liberals = strong gov (Army)/weak 2nd = tyranny.

Neocons = strong gov/strong second = civil war.

Libertarians = weak gov/strong 2nd = freedom.

And libertarians are called crazy :confused:
Freedom (real freedom-not the empty Party slogan) is NOT popular in Amerika, as much as we'd like it to be. :(

[Scrapmo]

Im just going to reiterate what NorthCarolinaLiberty said.

Most people are shockingly incapable of metaphysical and philosophical thinking these days. You have to keep it basic because you are asking most people to engage in an activity they have never performed before, critical thinking.

When attacking peoples sacred cows, I prefer a gentler style, especially when I know Im going to receive an almost visceral reaction when I tip it over. In my experience it just makes it easier for the conversation to go forward instead of getting hung up on the opening statement.

I have had the same "fighting for our freedom" conversations several times with my mother-in-law, who happens to react like Agent Smith in the Matrix whenever she sees someone attacking her system. As you can guess, given the nature of our relationship I have to precede cautiously.

I start very basic. "Which freedoms are they protecting?" is where I start. The person typically says all of them. Then I get more and more specific, the Socratic method is your friend here. I ask them to specify which freedoms have been under threat and which particular wars were fought for that specific right. Example: "how did a veteran in Vietnam protect my freedom of speech?". Vietnam is good because A lot of people see that to have been a senseless war and even if they do agree with that war, there is no way to make the connection to freedoms back at home.

Starting off with calling possible family members murderers, regardless of the truth of that statement, is going to shut the door on the conversation from the start. It is asking too much of them. It would be like asking a student to do calculus before that student has mastered addition and subtraction. There needs to be a progression.

I don't always agree with your style FF, but I do admire your zeal and tenacity. One of my life's lessons was learning how to control let that fervor motivate me without letting it control me.

[Scrapmo]

I forced myself through the rest of the thread. It appears there are a few posters over there with some sense. I believe you were banned and the thread moved because the admin did not like where the thread was heading. Gotta protect that cognitive dissonance.

[shane77m]

Doormat is a total pacifist, so he's even more "radical" than me in that regard, but yes, he's one of the best posters on there.

shane, you should join over there. We'd have another libertarian AND another Calvinist, that would be awesome!! You too, Celt.


.

Nah. This forum has enough depressing stuff on it. I don't need nor can I handle anymore.

[jonhowe]

The fact that the clueless moderator had a Duck Dynasty avatar made me laugh heartily.

[Christian Liberty]

Ha! I feel like every day the ban gets longer despite the fact that I am currently not able to post:p


You have been banned for the following reason:
Pure and complete disrespect
Date the ban will be lifted: November 18th, 2013, 08:00 PM



What is there to do but laugh?

For those of yo who disagree with my "style" I get what you're saying but honestly, I don't know how else to do it. There's no reasoning with these kind of people. Or is there?

I've tried asking the kinds of questions that you guys are saying (Like "What freedoms do they protect exactly?) but they don't even try to discuss them. Its that "How dare you" attitude. How are we ever going to have freedom when these kinds of brainwashed idiots are still here? What do we do about it?

Ugh, I'm so unbelievably ticked. Not just because of them, but because I know 80+% of America would agree with them.

EDIT
ORS NOTE - This thread has been moved to the Hall of Shame for it's distasteful subject matter. On a day where normal humans honor those who fought for the freedom we enjoy in this country posting something like this is un-Christian, un-American, and unacceptable. The person who posted this sick garbage has been given a "TOL Vacation". - Knight

What I want to know is since when exactly "Un-American" and "Un-Christian" were synonymous.

What do you guys recommend I do when my ban ends? Should I challenge them again or let it go?

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that the clueless moderator had a Duck Dynasty avatar made me laugh heartily.

Just out of curiosity, why does that matter? I don't watch Duck Dynasty (Don't have cable) so I don't "Get it."

[green73]

I would have banned you for being a Dolphins fan.

[Christian Liberty]

I would have banned you for being a Dolphins fan.

LOL! That's probably a better reason actually. The Dolphins suck right now. Ugh.


Im just going to reiterate what NorthCarolinaLiberty said.

Most people are shockingly incapable of metaphysical and philosophical thinking these days. You have to keep it basic because you are asking most people to engage in an activity they have never performed before, critical thinking.

When attacking peoples sacred cows, I prefer a gentler style, especially when I know Im going to receive an almost visceral reaction when I tip it over. In my experience it just makes it easier for the conversation to go forward instead of getting hung up on the opening statement.

I have had the same "fighting for our freedom" conversations several times with my mother-in-law, who happens to react like Agent Smith in the Matrix whenever she sees someone attacking her system. As you can guess, given the nature of our relationship I have to precede cautiously.

I start very basic. "Which freedoms are they protecting?" is where I start. The person typically says all of them. Then I get more and more specific, the Socratic method is your friend here. I ask them to specify which freedoms have been under threat and which particular wars were fought for that specific right. Example: "how did a veteran in Vietnam protect my freedom of speech?". Vietnam is good because A lot of people see that to have been a senseless war and even if they do agree with that war, there is no way to make the connection to freedoms back at home.

Starting off with calling possible family members murderers, regardless of the truth of that statement, is going to shut the door on the conversation from the start. It is asking too much of them. It would be like asking a student to do calculus before that student has mastered addition and subtraction. There needs to be a progression.

I don't always agree with your style FF, but I do admire your zeal and tenacity. One of my life's lessons was learning how to control let that fervor motivate me without letting it control me.

I wasn't trying to prove that anyone's relative was a murderer, although I get that that's sometimes the logical implication that isn't really avoidable. All I was intending to prove is that nobody fought for our freedom and that Christians shouldn't be glorifying "The troops" on "veteran's day."

I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I have to vent:p

[Christian Liberty]

What's really sad is to see how people talk to each other. What the heck happened to being able to debate facts without hurling insults and character assassinations? Sad, sad, sad.

Completely, totally "par for the course" there. I fully expected to get called all kinds of names when I posted that thread. I didn't care. (Occasionally I insult people as well, not necessarily proud of it but sometimes I just get that ticked.) I didn't expect to get banned though. Its a week now. oh well.

I guess you're saying that people would actually gain freedom without such state interventions, and I will certainly agree. The people with whom you are debating are saying just the opposite. You'd really have to start at the most elementary level to make that case with such people. You and I know it's really not that hard, but it makes most people's head hurt.

State intervention in the economy is one thing. Its ridiculous, it doesn't actually help anything, but I can at least see the theoretical corrolation between food regulation and food quality. Again, I think its absurd, but I can understand how an ignorant person could make that corrolation.

I can even understand how somebody can think that the American soldiers are fighting for other people's freedom, even if that's not true either.

But how the heck they are fighting for our freedom, or what government on earth would say you can't choose your cereal... I don't know.

I'm trying to think back to how I reasoned three years ago, but I can't empathize with it at all. I'm a completely different person, even if I did have libertarian spark in a few areas even back then.

[Eagles' Wings]

Im just going to reiterate what NorthCarolinaLiberty said.

Most people are shockingly incapable of metaphysical and philosophical thinking these days. You have to keep it basic because you are asking most people to engage in an activity they have never performed before, critical thinking.

When attacking peoples sacred cows, I prefer a gentler style, especially when I know Im going to receive an almost visceral reaction when I tip it over. In my experience it just makes it easier for the conversation to go forward instead of getting hung up on the opening statement.

I have had the same "fighting for our freedom" conversations several times with my mother-in-law, who happens to react like Agent Smith in the Matrix whenever she sees someone attacking her system. As you can guess, given the nature of our relationship I have to precede cautiously.

I start very basic. "Which freedoms are they protecting?" is where I start. The person typically says all of them. Then I get more and more specific, the Socratic method is your friend here. I ask them to specify which freedoms have been under threat and which particular wars were fought for that specific right. Example: "how did a veteran in Vietnam protect my freedom of speech?". Vietnam is good because A lot of people see that to have been a senseless war and even if they do agree with that war, there is no way to make the connection to freedoms back at home.

Starting off with calling possible family members murderers, regardless of the truth of that statement, is going to shut the door on the conversation from the start. It is asking too much of them. It would be like asking a student to do calculus before that student has mastered addition and subtraction. There needs to be a progression.

I don't always agree with your style FF, but I do admire your zeal and tenacity. One of my life's lessons was learning how to control let that fervor motivate me without letting it control me.Well said. Many here use the Socratic method and those are the ones I respect and learn from.

+rep

[Snew]

[B][I][COLOR=#ff0000]EDIT

What I want to know is since when exactly "Un-American" and "Un-Christian" were synonymous.

What do you guys recommend I do when my ban ends? Should I challenge them again or let it go?

Certainly don't back down from your position. I don't think you did anything wrong (obviously) but maybe try to avoid appearing like a loudmouth (by starting too many threads, etc.) The Socratic method is definitely a good idea when you do find yourself in the midst of a debate.

That red text they posted is complete bullcrap, but unfortunately the vast majority of Americans would agree with it :(

[Christian Liberty]

What's really sad is to see how people talk to each other. What the heck happened to being able to debate facts without hurling insults and character assassinations? Sad, sad, sad.


Certainly don't back down from your position. I don't think you did anything wrong (obviously) but maybe try to avoid appearing like a loudmouth (by starting too many threads, etc.) The Socratic method is definitely a good idea when you do find yourself in the midst of a debate.

That red text they posted is complete bullcrap, but unfortunately the vast majority of Americans would agree with it :(

Yeah, that makes me sad too.

[jonhowe]

Just out of curiosity, why does that matter? I don't watch Duck Dynasty (Don't have cable) so I don't "Get it."

I don't even have television, but I keep seeing headlines on Fox talking about how great the show is. O'Reilly and Hannity seem to eat it up for its "Christian values".

This makes me assume it is laughably bad.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't even have television, but I keep seeing headlines on Fox talking about how great the show is. O'Reilly and Hannity seem to eat it up for its "Christian values".

This makes me assume it is laughably bad.

It's a good show actually.

[Scrapmo]

There's no reasoning with these kind of people. Or is there?

There are plenty of people who you cannot reason with. If I think that is what I am dealing with I tend to "shake the dust from my feet." Message boards are a double edged sword. Because of anonymity, you can talk more openly about what you think and speak with more people, but that same anonymity allows people to be bigger dicks then they ever would face to face. Its one of the reasons I tend to avoid message board debates. Most lack the restraint and cordiality they would retain in person. Most of my "liberty" talks are in person where people can see that I am not a raving lunatic and I am delivering my beliefs respectfully. It just works better for me face to face.


How are we ever going to have freedom when these kinds of brainwashed idiots are still here? What do we do about it?

I have come to the conclusion that we aren't. Maybe I will be more optimistic in the future, but I am reminded of a Jefferson quote, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."


What I want to know is since when exactly "Un-American" and "Un-Christian" were synonymous.

Its a big problem in the church today. The state is elevated to God's defender, if not god itself. A church my friend went to made the conscience decision to remove all American flag symbolism from the church. A ww2 vet stood up and yelled "if it wasnt for the Flag, none of us would be able to worship God in this country." Not much you can do with someone like that Im afraid.


I wasn't trying to prove that anyone's relative was a murderer
Yeah, but thats how they are taking it, it becomes real personal real quick, then all rational discourse is out the window. I try to make it impersonal, not always possible, but the idea is to be strategic, we are dealing with a lifetime of brainwashing.


I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I have to vent

Yeah, I think that is what half of this board is about lol

[Paulbot99]

This saddens me as a Christian and a Libertarian. I will pray for them.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

ORS NOTE - This thread has been moved to the Hall of Shame for it's distasteful subject matter. On a day where normal humans honor those who fought for the freedom we enjoy in this country posting something like this is un-Christian, un-American, and unacceptable. The person who posted this sick garbage has been given a "TOL Vacation". - Knight


What do you guys recommend I do when my ban ends? Should I challenge them again or let it go?


You should create a new user name called Abnormal Trashcan and troll their emotions.

[Ender]

As a Minister under a Vow of Poverty, that site sickens me, FF.

I would not waste my time or energy in such a place.

[kcchiefs6465]

As a Minister under a Vow of Poverty, that site sickens me, FF.

I would not waste my time or energy in such a place.
What's a Vow of Poverty?

[Ender]

What's a Vow of Poverty?

Technically, a Vow of Poverty is a promise or a declaration that is made by members of certain ministries/religious orders to renounce all personal property. The vow stipulates that money and possessions will be used for the common good.

[kcchiefs6465]

Technically, a Vow of Poverty is a promise or a declaration that is made by members of certain ministries/religious orders to renounce all personal property. The vow stipulates that money and possessions will be used for the common good.
Good on you. That is what I figured it was but had never heard the term before. +rep.

[Ender]

Good on you. That is what I figured it was but had never heard the term before. +rep.

Thanks, kcchiefs6465- it's the best decision I have ever made.

[kcchiefs6465]

Thanks, kcchiefs6465- it's the best decision I have ever made.
Fulfilling, I'm sure.

[moostraks]

As a Minister under a Vow of Poverty, that site sickens me, FF.

I would not waste my time or energy in such a place.


I can't even get over their header. It is one thing to be accountable to a church you choose to affiliate with but to be rebuked by random believer on the internets is just arrogance and hate masquerading as Christianity. It is evident in their manner of discussion on this thread with the name calling and lack of substance.

I believe there is more harm than good that will occur by associating with great depth in a place such as that.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't even have television, but I keep seeing headlines on Fox talking about how great the show is. O'Reilly and Hannity seem to eat it up for its "Christian values".

This makes me assume it is laughably bad.

I haven't seen much of it, but what you say doesn't HAVE to be true. Every Christian I've talked to about it likes it except my brother, but they aren't generally politically too awake either.


It's a good show actually.

Is there any actual neoconnery in it? I haven't really seen it so I don't know.

You should create a new user name called Abnormal Trashcan and troll their emotions.

LOL! Although I think it might be even funnier if someone else here did that. I don't know exactly what I should do with such a username either.

I can't even get over their header.

I actually agree with that, aside from the fact that 90% of them need "Open rebuke."

It is one thing to be accountable to a church you choose to affiliate with but to be rebuked by random believer on the internets is just arrogance and hate masquerading as Christianity. It is evident in their manner of discussion on this thread with the name calling and lack of substance.


I don't give a crap that I was "Called out." They are just wrong.



I believe there is more harm than good that will occur by associating with great depth in a place such as that.

I strongly, strongly prefer this forum. Mostly over there to educate, and for a few specific people.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Is there any actual neoconnery in it? I haven't really seen it so I don't know.

I've only recently started watching it, not a very political show. They end every episode by saying a prayer before a meal.