Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Mel wrote:
Whoa, hang on here.
If you don't respond to my questions, you're being being obtuse and there will be consequences.
Grace period?
This has got to be a place as far as I see it, where anyone can contribute as long as they are not being disrespectful, or personally derogative.
Not a place where threats are made.
Unless absolutely necessary.
Ken is just putting forward his beliefs. I disagree with him, but I have read the board guidelines a number of times, and he has not breached them.
A lack of understanding for you position Rick is not a basis for threats.
Well Mel,
Then maybe you need to reread the Board purpose. Specifically the underlined.
Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:
Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.
This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.
This board is not intended for posters like Kenny. He has been given more opportunities than anyone else, since I've been here. And if you were following Kenny's posts since he joined, like I've been following them, you'd understand what I'm talking about.
And since you think the reason why I warned Kenny is simply because he doesn't understand my position, it's obvious you have no idea what Kenny has been posting for the last 16 months.
And Mel,
You said Kenny is putting forth his beliefs. When has Kenny ever put forth any belief? He has made it a habit of avoiding posting beliefs, so he won't have to defend what he believes. It's an extremely dishonest and disrespectful way to have discussions.
So yes Mel, the warnings are long overdue. Whether you like it or not.
Look at it from my pov. I allow Kenny to continue posting as he does, and I'm not enforcing the board guidelines. If I do enforce the board guidelines, then I'm accused by you of being a bully.
I never accused you of being a bully Rick. I said that I didn't believe in this instance threats were appropriate by direct application of the board guidelines.
Warnings are not long overdue, they have slung around against Ken for sometime.
I have been on this board for ironically about the same time, and whilst you say that I must have 'no idea' about what Ken has been posting or an ability to understand the gist of them, or perhaps have just not followed them you are wrong on all accounts. It is because I have followed and understood that I made my comments. I am no idiot Rick and I do not make flippant responses. Nor do I find it difficult to follow threads. Do not mistake my silence on threads as ignorance, I am diligent and read through every post and thread on here even though I do not always comment.
I think this board should welcome posters like Kenny.
It should be intended for the likes of him.
As long as he maintains a respectful dialogue like he always has.
This board is not intended for posters line Kenny.
Really?
Let's shut him out, close communication and give him the boot.
Has he ever been banned for any period of time, for any violation of the board rules?
I like Ken.
I admire his calm nature when being questioned. He is polite and well mannered.
I don't agree with majority of what he says but he is a welcome addition to this forum, as far as I see it.
But meh, I'm not a moderator.
Just a part of this forum, with an opinion.
Perhaps I am walking a thin line.
If you have a problem with my moderating, please take your issue to me or another moderator via pm. This is not the place for you to complain about my moderating.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Im sorry Rick but that's ironic. You make public your 'warnings' to Ken and do not do so via pm to him. You post publicly on the thread but yet you expect any opposition to such to only be done via pm to you.
Sounds like do as I say not as I do.
Mel, it is not appropriate to question a moderator on the use of the rules He is very, very familiar with, indeed, help make even.
Pretty much every forum has a policy in which the actions of moderators are NOT up for debate.
I know, I am a moderator on quite a few boards, including a few martial arts ones and, on all of them, moderator decisions are, in the realm of the "job" as moderators, up for debate.
As moderators our warnings MUST be public.
If a person disagrees with them the most we tend to tolerate is " sorry but I disagree". Anything beyond that should be dealt via PM.
Having read the posts in questions it is my view that Rick is quite correct AND, to be honest, far more lenient than I.
The rules of the board are very clear, anyone posting on here needs to respect them.
Well then, I guess all I have to say is "sorry but I disagree".
If someone could point out exactly where Ken broke the guidelines rules that would be appreciated. On here or pm, that would be great.
Perhaps that would be in the best interest of the forum, if every time someone broke one of these rules, it was clearly stated when and how a rule has been breached. For the most part so the poster is clearly aware and everyone else. Speficalky quoted and warned.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
melanie wrote:Well then, I guess all I have to say is "sorry but I disagree".
If someone could point out exactly where Ken broke the guidelines rules that would be appreciated. On here or pm, that would be great.
Perhaps that would be in the best interest of the forum, if every time someone broke one of these rules, it was clearly stated when and how a rule has been breached. For the most part so the poster is clearly aware and everyone else. Speficalky quoted and warned.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
Mel,
I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible, without taking away from what I'm trying to say. You don't need to know when Kenny or anyone else broke the rules. If Kenny breaks the rules, and a moderator feels like something needs to be said or done about it, then Kenny will know. And if something is said to Kenny, and he has a problem with it, he can pm the moderator who spoke to him.
I'll ask again, please let the discussion from now forward, be about the topic. This is not the proper place to discuss this.
Thank you for understanding
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I read most of the first link and realized intellectual dishonesty sums it up nicely.It is just intellectual dishonesty on shown by atheists and agnostics.This is why I keep stressing they need to get back in reality,out of LA LA land,drop imagination and face the truth.I think we should ask them one question based on the facts of logic,reason and reality - ALL things have a cause and all things that are caused are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence and ask them can they name anything in our world that does not apply to these facts and no longer waste time responding to them until they can name something that does not apply to these facts and until they can,and have a basis for believing the way they do,not respond to them.Because they have nothing,no evidence or reason to defy these facts and until they can give a reason,we are wasting time trying to convince a person God is real when they are not even in reality.
This is why they just ignore this philosophy they cannot refute.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:
ALL things have a cause and all things that are caused are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence
I noticed you enunciated the word "all". Does this means this applies to God as well?
abelcainsbrother wrote:and ask them can they name anything in our world that does not apply to these facts
What about outside our world?
K
God is usually seen as the great uncaused Cause - nothing else could have made itself or come from nowhere but he is the eternal one who could have made everything.
abelcainsbrother wrote:
ALL things have a cause and all things that are caused are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence
I noticed you enunciated the word "all". Does this means this applies to God as well?
abelcainsbrother wrote:and ask them can they name anything in our world that does not apply to these facts
What about outside our world?
K
God is usually seen as the great uncaused Cause - nothing else could have made itself or come from nowhere but he is the eternal one who could have made everything.
I understand that, but that's not what he said. He said ALL. "All" means everything that exists; he didn't make any exceptions. Unless he decides to change his words to mirror what you've said, I was hoping to get his perspective on this.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Nikki, Kenny is technically correct, but it's the sort of absurd and trivial point that demonstates why he's fundamentally unserious in these discussions. Yes, abel should have worded it better. He should have said "all effects have a cause." His second portion was correct, "and all things that are caused are caused by something else." That was right. He could have just left the first five words off.
Alternativey, abel could just point out (rightly) that God isn't a thing and so his statement is correct as it stands. But none of this matters. It's all just a technical discussion of how to word abel's point. If Kenny were honest, he would address the actual point abel is making rather than arguing about the semantics. But he isn't. He's too busy playing gotcha to have a serious dialogue.
Beyond that, Nikki, you are absolutely correct in your statement about God and the uncaused cause. Well said.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Jac3510 wrote:Nikki, Kenny is technically correct, but it's the sort of absurd and trivial point that demonstates why he's fundamentally unserious in these discussions. Yes, abel should have worded it better. He should have said "all effects have a cause." His second portion was correct, "and all things that are caused are caused by something else." That was right. He could have just left the first five words off.
Alternativey, abel could just point out (rightly) that God isn't a thing and so his statement is correct as it stands. But none of this matters. It's all just a technical discussion of how to word abel's point. If Kenny were honest, he would address the actual point abel is making rather than arguing about the semantics. But he isn't. He's too busy playing gotcha to have a serious dialogue.
Beyond that, Nikki, you are absolutely correct in your statement about God and the uncaused cause. Well said.
I am honest, and I am addressing the point HE made. I am addressing his actual words, but what I am not doing is putting words in his mouth which is what you seem to be good at doing.
If he wishes to change his words, he can do that and I will address whatever point he chooses to make; but I am addressing his words, not yours.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
