LordReed:


I asked you for well known examples and those were the ones you gave. You want to try again?

This is going from ridiculous to absurd. Try what again? Virtually all early Christians are true followers of Christ, as are virtually all monks, etc. Give an equivalent example in atheism - how do we know someone is truly a committed atheist and won't turn religious tomorrow??

PoliteActivist:


This is going from ridiculous to absurd. Try what again? Virtually all early Christians are true followers of Christ, as are virtually all monks, etc. Give an equivalent example in atheism - how do we know someone is truly a committed atheist and won't turn religious tomorrow??

LoL. Deflection tactics. Then tomorrow you'll say the discussion is ridiculous. You are the one specifying true. I asked you to give examples of true followers which you count yourself among yet do not comform to the examples you gave, how does what you say square up? Not going to give any examples from atheism because not only are you seeking to deflect to something else, I have already told you I don't use the adjective true with regards to atheism. So may be give some other example that conforms with your presentation of yourself as a true follower.

LordReed:


LoL. Deflection tactics. Then tomorrow you'll say the discussion is ridiculous. You are the one specifying true. I asked you to give examples of true followers which you count yourself among yet do not comform to the examples you gave, how does what you say square up? Not going to give any examples from atheism because not only are you seeking to deflect to something else, I have already told you I don't use the adjective true with regards to atheism. So may be give some other example that conforms with your presentation of yourself as a true follower.

Deflect what? I'm just trying to demonstrate to you that the question is nonsensical. You don't know people I know so if I mention a person you won't know them. Public figures we both know, no matter how pious, we don't know them well enough. It is like asking me a public figure who follows all ten commandments. You see how obtuse?

PoliteActivist:


Deflect what? I'm just trying to demonstrate to you that the question is nonsensical. You don't know people I know so if I mention a person you won't know them. Public figures we both know, no matter how pious, we don't know them well enough. It is like asking me a public figure who follows all ten commandments. You see how obtuse?

You are the one specifying true followers not me. So how do you know the people you know are true followers? What are their characteristics? You obviously changed your mind about them being monks, nuns or people with vows of poverty or are the people you know one of these? The obtuseness is coming from you since you can bend any which you like to avoid simple questions.

LordReed:


You are the one specifying true followers not me. So how do you know the people you know are true followers? What are their characteristics? You obviously changed your mind about them being monks, nuns or people with vows of poverty or are the people you know one of these? The obtuseness is coming from you since you can bend any which you like to avoid simple questions.

SIR, YOU KNOW CHRIST'S TEACHINGS!!! You can look around you and know who is not following them!! Anyone greedily amasing wordly possessions is obviously not folowing them. That's how this all started - you insisting they were following Christ's teachings!! Find something better to do than asking nonsensical questions!!

PoliteActivist:


SIR, YOU KNOW CHRIST'S TEACHINGS!!! You can look around you and know who is not following them!! Anyone greedily amasing wordly possessions is obviously not folowing them. That's how this all started - you insisting they were following Christ's teachings!! Find something better to do than asking nonsensical questions!!

And find something better to do than making claims you cannot support, that's called talking out your arse.

LordReed:


And find something better to do than making claims you cannot support, that's called talking out your arse.

Support how, sir? Lord Jesus said "eschew worldly acquisitivness". You kept insisting that people greedily amasing private jets and buildings were following Jesus' teachings. When you were told that's obviously not true. You asked for public examples of those following the teaching!!! I mean, how ridiculous can one get!!!

PoliteActivist:


Support how, sir? Lord Jesus said "eschew worldly acquisitivness". You kept insisting that people greedily amasing private jets and buildings were following Jesus' teachings. When you were told that's obviously not true. You asked for public examples of those following the teaching!!! I mean, how ridiculous can one get!!!

You are the ridiculous one here because you claimed to be a true follower in direct contradiction with the examples you gave of monks, nuns and others with vows of poverty of which you obviously are none. To now provide the characteristics of the true followers is what is making you go into a tizzy, obviously because you can't support your ridiculous claims of knowing who true followers are. You are not only ridiculous you have jumped the shark into absurdity.

LordReed:


You are the ridiculous one here because you claimed to be a true follower in direct contradiction with the examples you gave of monks, nuns and others with vows of poverty of which you obviously are none. To now provide the characteristics of the true followers is what is making you go into a tizzy, obviously because you can't support your ridiculous claims of knowing who true followers are. You are not only ridiculous you have jumped the shark into absurdity.

The issue was never about me or you. The issue was wether priests greedily amsing material wealth were following the teachings of Christ. You first were insisting they were. Then you acknowledged they were not. That's the end of the discussion/argument. Your trying to salvage some face-saving by asking (with all due respect) inane questions, doesn't change the fact you already acknowledged you lost. If this were an election, you conceded long ago!

PoliteActivist:


The issue was never about me or you. The issue was wether priests greedily amsing material wealth were following the teachings of Christ. You first were insisting they were. Then you acknowledged they were not. That's the end of the discussion/argument. Your trying to salvage some face-saving by asking (with all due respect) inane questions, doesn't change the fact you already acknowledged you lost. If this were an election, you conceded long ago!

I asked questions which you attempted to answer until you saw you rubbished your own positions with the answers you gave. That's why now you are going into all this rigmarole. Keep indulging in your self deceit. LMFAO!

LordReed:


I asked questions which you attempted to answer until you saw you rubbished your own positions with the answers you gave. That's why now you are going into all this rigmarole. Keep indulging in your self deceit. LMFAO!

Articulate you question again, and reason it as you ask it. You'll hear for your self how inane it is!

PoliteActivist:


Articulate you question again, and reason it as you ask it. You'll hear for your self how inane it is!

LoL! The inane one here is you since you called yourself a true follower yet cannot articulate how you know the true followers. Inanely and absurdly ridiculous.

LordReed:


LoL! The inane one here is you since you called yourself a true follower yet cannot articulate how you know the true followers. Inanely and absurdly ridiculous.

Sir, once again, YOU KNOW THE TEACHINGS OF LORD JESUS. It would be different if you didn't. Whoever you see doing the opposite of those teachings is not following those teachings. You don't ask someone you know almost nothing about for info u can ascertain for yourself. Even if we circulate in the same circles (which we don't) it would still be an inane questions!

PoliteActivist:


Sir, once again, YOU KNOW THE TEACHINGS OF LORD JESUS. It would be different if you didn't. Whoever you see doing the opposite of those teachings is not following those teachings. You don't ask someone you know almost nothing about for info u can ascertain for yourself. Even if we circulate in the same circles (which we don't) it would still be an inane questions!

Either you're daft or just obstinately daft.You claimed to know true followers but cannot articulate characteristics of a true follower. I have repeated that I don't gatekeep so it is left for you to tell me how to know true followers but because you know you sold yourself a bag of rocks you can't so you resort to these dumbass tactics to refuse to answer the question.

LordReed:


Either you're daft or just obstinately daft.You claimed to know true followers but cannot articulate characteristics of a true follower. I have repeated that I don't gatekeep so it is left for you to tell me how to know true followers but because you know you sold yourself a bag of rocks you can't so you resort to these dumbass tactics to refuse to answer the question.

Sir, you read the Bible. You know Christ's teachings. The characteristics are right there. WHAT OTHER CHARACTERISTICS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? Please tell me. Maybe I'm the one being obtuse. Please tell us what other characteristics you are talking about!!

PoliteActivist:


Sir, you read the Bible. You know Christ's teachings. The characteristics are right there. WHAT OTHER CHARACTERISTICS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? Please tell me. Maybe I'm the one being obtuse. Please tell us what other characteristics you are talking about!!

You tell me since you claimed to know the true followers. The same question I have repeated a couple of times already.

LordReed:


You tell me since you claimed to know the true followers. The same question I have repeated a couple of times already.

Once again, I never claimed anything, I stated a FACT (which you were forced to acknowledge). I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!!! Those pastors you kept insisting were following, were NOT!! (as you were later forced to acknowledge also). You acknowledged yourself you know Christ's teachings. Look for those characteristics. ANYBODY YOU SEE DOING THE OPPOSITE IS NOT FOLLOWING!!!
You are now becoming mildly annoying!

PoliteActivist:

Once again, I never claimed anything, I stated a FACT (which you were forced to acknowledge). I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!!! Those pastors you kept insisting were following, were NOT!! (as you were later forced to acknowledge also). You acknowledged yourself you know Christ's teachings. Look for those characteristics. ANYBODY YOU SEE DOING THE OPPOSITE IS NOT FOLLOWING!!!
You are now becoming mildly annoying!

And you are an annoying twàt. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that you claimed you know who the true followers are and yet cannot articulate characteristics of the true followers. Anyway I am done with this conversation. Dishonest annoying twàts can only have so much of my attention.

LordReed:


And you are an annoying twàt. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that you claimed you know who the true followers are and yet cannot articulate characteristics of the true followers. Anyway I am done with this conversation. Dishonest annoying twàts can only have so much of my attention.

My good sir, I think your problem is a poor memory. You were done with the conversation a long time ago.
Carefully read the below, especially the marked in red. It will refresh your memory how long ago you lost, after which you started smoke-screen maneuvers to save face.
Take good care sir, next time stop arguing once you've dug a hole you can't get out of. Start another discussion elsewhere instead of trying to save face flogging a dead horse!