Red Letter Christians

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Do you think you can better understand someone by gaining understanding of their views or by asking them to label themselves?

Yes.

This is a spirituality forum, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask someone to declare whether they are theist, atheist or agnostic before engaging with them. Your refusal to do so tells me all I need to know at this juncture.

Good luck with the threads.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Yes.

This is a spirituality forum, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask someone to declare whether they are theist, atheist or agnostic before engaging with them. Your refusal to do so tells me all I need to know at this juncture.

Good luck with the threads.

DG's response is quite telling.

This is the first post on this thread that DG edited text out of the "Originally Posted By" box. In his previous five responses to me, he left it unedited. Toward what end? Below is the paragraph from my original post that DG edited down to one sentence:

Your questions are interesting in and of themselves. Do you think you can better understand someone by gaining understanding of their views or by asking them to label themselves? As for me, I think the former. Labels are not only superficial at best, they are often misleading,

Clearly a much better understanding of someone can be gained by understanding their views rather than asking them to label themselves. Rather than answer the question honestly, DG edited out the surrounding text in an awkward attempt to obscure this fact. It's a demonstration of his underhandedness.

That DG responded to an "either / or " question with "Yes" just makes his blatant underhandedness all the more laughable.

Of course there was also the underhandedness from DG's previous response that I called him out on that he also edited out rather than address it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
DG's response is quite telling.

This is the first post on this thread that DG edited text out of the "Originally Posted By" box. In his previous five responses to me, he left it unedited. Toward what end? Below is the paragraph from my original post that DG edited down to one sentence:
[quote]Your questions are interesting in and of themselves. Do yo ...[text shortened]... DG's previous response that I called him out on that he also edited out rather than address it.

Why are you talking to me in the third person? You sound like duchess64.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
DG's response is quite telling.

This is the first post on this thread that DG edited text out of the "Originally Posted By" box. In his previous five responses to me, he left it unedited. Toward what end? Below is the paragraph from my original post that DG edited down to one sentence:
[quote]Your questions are interesting in and of themselves. Do yo ...[text shortened]... DG's previous response that I called him out on that he also edited out rather than address it.

I had your card marked many years ago and this exchange has reconfirmed my initial insight.

If you want to engage with me, those (questions) are my terms, if not then that’s fine too.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Why are you talking to me in the third person? You sound like duchess64.

I was speaking to the forum about your post. I was not speaking to you.

Is such a concept so far beyond your grasp?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I had your card marked many years ago and this exchange has reconfirmed my initial insight.

If you want to engage with me, those (questions) are my terms, if not then that’s fine too.

Based on the quality of your posts over the years, there's no loss for me.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
I was speaking to the forum about your post. I was not speaking to you.

Is such a concept so far beyond your grasp?

You replied to me directly; you were therefore speaking to me in the third person.
It's not difficult.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Based on the quality of your posts over the years, there's no loss for me.

Well not engaging with you is a loss to me.

But then that is the fundamental difference between the two of us in here - I am forthright, intellectually honest and unequivocal, you are not.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You replied to me directly; you were therefore speaking to me in the third person.
It's not difficult.

Once again, I was speaking to the forum about your post. I was not speaking to you.

I quoted the post so that the forum could see to which post I was referring.

Evidently such a concept IS too far beyond your grasp.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Well not engaging with you is a loss to me.

But then that is the fundamental difference between the two of us in here - I am forthright, intellectually honest and unequivocal, you are not.

Well not engaging with you is a loss to me.

It's your choice.

But then that is the fundamental difference between the two of us in here - I am forthright, intellectually honest and unequivocal, you are not.

Yeah well, then there's reality.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Well not engaging with you is a loss to me.

It's your choice.

But then that is the fundamental difference between the two of us in here - I am forthright, intellectually honest and unequivocal, you are not.

Yeah well, then there's reality.[/b]

It is my choice, and has been for several years. Since the last time I asked you a few direct questions and you shrunk back into shell hiding behind a dislike of labels. We both know what I'm talking about here so let's not pretend.

Originally posted by @divegeester
It is my choice, and has been for several years. Since the last time I asked you a few direct questions and you shrunk back into shell hiding behind a dislike of labels. We both know what I'm talking about here so let's not pretend.

If anyone is "pretending" it is you. For someone who purports to be "forthright, intellectually honest and unequivocal", it's interesting how your depiction of my response distorts it into something it's not.

I'll put my response out there again:

Your questions are interesting in and of themselves. Do you think you can better understand someone by gaining understanding of their views or by asking them to label themselves? As for me, I think the former. Labels are not only superficial at best, they are often misleading,

Of course, perhaps the concepts put forth there are also too far beyond your grasp.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If anyone is "pretending" it is you...

Perhaps I’ve not made myself clear thinkofone, unless you are prepared to at least declare whether you are thiest, atheist or agnostic, I’m not prepared to discuss the deeper aspects of my beliefs with you.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Of course, perhaps the concepts put forth there are also too far beyond your grasp.

🙄

I like the words of Jesus.
Not telling you why or what I actually believe.
My ideas are too much for you.

Funny.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Perhaps I’ve not made myself clear thinkofone, unless you are prepared to at least declare whether you are thiest, atheist or agnostic, I’m not prepared to discuss the deeper aspects of my beliefs with you.

What? More "pretending"?

I never asked you to "discuss the deeper aspects of [your] beliefs with [me]". Why are you pretending that I did?