No Room At The Inn?

[pancreasman]

I think what we have here might be a theological problem or difference of emphasis. Darth, Pap, Epo et al find their theological purpose in the metaphor of battle and warfare or 'fighting'. Darth says that is what he is here for. There certainly are some theological justifications for this although most, but not all, are in the OT.

OTOH, with Jesus, supposedly the supreme revelation of the nature of God, we find a quite different emphasis. The early church, as recorded in the letters, also were obviously encouraged to operate out of this new paradigm. And that's what I think it is, a new paradigm of relationship. The Old Covenant was based on obedience and judgement, while the new one is based on mercy and forgiveness. Not exclusively of course. Elements of both 'ways' may be found in both, but I propose there is a distince shift in emphasis between the two.

Thus, to be meek and mild at all times (even here) is a theological error imo, to be combative and disdainful at all times (even here) is also an error.

Just a reminder, nobody has yet argued why those scriptural injunctions should not be met. I won't encourage the stirrers anymore.

edited to add. The scriptures got lost on the repost, just check back if you wish to argue the case.

[Darth Executor]

well that's just a plain lie. I never called her an idiot. Passive aggressive my great aunt. That's just another term like projection you throw around because because you can only see human interactions in combat terms.

I was mocking your argument, I never claimed you called her an idiot.

[lilpixieofterror]

You tell me. Apparently you see a problem there that I don't.

Of course you don't see a problem because you seem to revel in the attention it brings.

Exactly, hence 'Yankee' instead of 'western'. You're welcome for the correction.

I somehow doubt that a Spaniard or a Frenchman is going to enjoy you calling children 'slaves', but tell yourself whatever you want to hear if it makes you feel better.

Oh, the question?

And your avoidance answer below is noted.

No. Are you telling me you didn't know that until college, and needed to learn it from a course?

Red herring alert! For whining about others attack red herrings, you sure seem to love them yourself. You also seem to enjoy stuffing words down people's throats, so again... guess when you can't refute what is brought forth. Any shelter in a storm will do...

[Cow Poke]

What CP says ...



What CP hears ..



Because CP is married, and has daughters.

Truer words, my friend...

[Cow Poke]

To expand, for people who aren't idiots: KG's post is pure garbage. I don't fight "for its own sake",

Yeah you do! You just PRETEND it's for a higher purpose to justify (in your own mind) your caustic nature.

[Cow Poke]

I might care if it inconvenienced me in some way, but CP's opinion is irrelevant,

You wish!

and he only drags my character into this to avoid a shellacking

You ARE a character, that's for sure, but the "shellacking" is only in your egotistic little mind.

[Cow Poke]

1) CP started the argument.

But MOM, CP started it! Waaanannnnnhhhhhh

(and I already posted proof where you poked your nose in where I wasn't even dealing with you)

2) CP is the one who wants to talk about our feelings instead of answering arguments made to him.

Conduct. Not feelings.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah you do! You just PRETEND it's for a higher purpose to justify (in your own mind) your caustic nature.

There are plenty of places where I can go to argue for fun. So no, not really.

But MOM, CP started it! Waaanannnnnhhhhhh

X started it is a perfectly legitimate defense. One you yourself used, for example, when defending Officer Wilson. Parents who don't take that into account when dealing with children pretty much tell their children they're not interested in justice.

(and I already posted proof where you poked your nose in where I wasn't even dealing with you)

You mean that post where I wasn't answering anybody in particular? Nevermind that Epo wasn't talking to YOU either, so you butted into HIS conversation. The difference is that I'm not the one running away from my warrior nature while engaging in wanton slaughter. Keep in mind that the substance of our first interactions are also like heaven and earth. Yours was substance-free drivel whose sole purpose was to feign outrage (and thus inevitably start a fight) whereas mine was a purely informative correction.

[Cow Poke]

You're cute, Darthy. You can spew forth your hostility all you want - I don't take you seriously.

[robrecht]

The tag line here is, "We Debate Theology... Seriously!" So while it might not be a 'formal' debate forum. It still is a debate forum of some type.

I can go along with that. Do you think the quality of 'informal' debate here is particularly good?

[lilpixieofterror]

I can go along with that. Do you think the quality of 'informal' debate here is particularly good?

Some yes and some no. It's loads better than many other web sites I've been to.

[Cow Poke]

I can go along with that. Do you think the quality of 'informal' debate here is particularly good?

I'm just here to watch Mossy Pin the thunder out of Rogue.

[KingsGambit]

Fighting for fun where both participants are there to fight for fun does not cause discord. Quite the opposite. As far as I can tell the only people in such a situation who are causing discord are the moralistic nannies who can't mind their own business.

This assumes that everybody you go after is in it for their own amusement too.

[pancreasman]

This assumes that everybody you go after is in it for their own amusement too.

No, the others are moralistic nannies ... like you, and me. Apparently being combative is a virtue and trying to be a peacemaker is not blessed at all, but effeminate.

[KingsGambit]

Here is one example of a post where a user had no interest in anything but a clinical discussion and was blindsided for no coherent reason:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post75943