PDN. My Hero.....

JimiTime

I feel the need, and not in a 'lick the Mods @rse' way to give a vote of confidence to PDN. Not that he needs it, I'm sure he doesn't give a toss what a few internet nerds think of him.

I don't think any of the Christians here have an issue, but alot of atheists seem to propagate a nonsense about his Chachter on here which is complete tosh.

Stuff like :rolleyes:'Oh, I'm a troll if I disagree with PDN' etc.

Countless times I as a Christian have been assisted by his obvious knowledge of Scripture and doctrine and think he's one of the best things thats happened to this forum. *hug*:)
I think if the critics of him were honest, they'd realise what an addition he is, and how much we'd miss if he wasn't here. I disagree with him on points, he disagree's with me on points. It is obvious to me anyway, that while patient, he is tested by the tiresome antics of some. Also, the tiresome arguements or points made. This recently happened in the thread about marrying an unbeliever. Now why is it that when I read his anecdotes I don't read 'PDN is saying that non-believers are tax criminals' or 'uncharitable' etc. I read, an 'example' of what he has come across. Real world issues etc. This type of thing then derails the thread, based on ill informed assumptions about him.

So I call on the atheists, both moderate and extreme, to drop this pre-conception and stop letting it mislead your opinions on points being made. Even if he is wrong, I have no doubt he is honest, and thats more than we can say for alot of people atheist or Christian. If there is some decorum, I don't think the mod stick will come out.

Sorry, but I just had to get that off my chest, as it seems to be a bit of nudge, nudge, 'PDN's at it again thing' happening that to me is completely unjustified.


....So ehh, PDN, is that cheque in the post;):)

Turtwig

To be fair,

Call me wrong, if you wish, but PDN was definitely, imo, partly to blame for that derailment.

Making such statements, almost always puts people of the defense and that is when derailment begins because they will almost always fight back.Nobody like their status in society being insulted, so even, if the examples weren't intentionally aimed at non-believers in general is it not reasonable to assume that some will take it as being intentional - words and emotions and can so often be easiliy misunderstood far more so than verbal communication.
Why give the example if it's not aimed at anybody discussing the thread?

prinz

I'll second that Jimi..


as long as I get my cut Usual 15% applies.

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

To be fair,

Call me wrong, if you wish, but PDN was definitely, imo, partly to blame for that derailment.

Making such statements, almost always puts people of the defense and that is when derailment begins because they will almost always fight back.Nobody like their status in society being insulted, so even, if the examples weren't intentionally aimed at non-believers in general is it not reasonable to assume that some will take it as being intentional - words and emotions and can so often be easiliy misunderstood far more so than verbal communication.
Why give the example if it's not aimed at anybody discussing the thread?

While I don't want this turning into a fight over the thread in question, I'll point out this.

PDN was specifically speaking to the OP who was asking specific questions. Most of us as Christians agree that there could well be problems down the line, but agree that every situation is different etc. PDN, who as a Pastor has real world experience, he gave the same advice, and simply gave 2 experiences that he encountered. Now I recall a reasonable disagreement to this. It being, that well such things can happen with 2 atheists, or indeed two christians etc. However, turning it around and saying he was attacking non-believers simply derails things. PDN gave his advice in good faith, and his anecdotes simply drew from his real life experience. I think people lost sight of the OP though, and engaged in a bit of bickery.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I'll second that Jimi..


as long as I get my cut Usual 15% applies.

I'm afraid I might have to let you go. Recession and all that:)

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Why give the example if it's not aimed at anybody discussing the thread?

At the risk of being accused of derailing the thread, presumably because it would be illustrative to the OP... the kind of issues that may arise which was very much on topic. So no, giving an opinion directly relating to the OP, and illustrating it with real life examples IMO does not count as derailing a thread.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

PDN was specifically speaking to the OP who was asking specific questions. Most of us as Christians agree that there could well be problems down the line, but agree that every situation is different etc. PDN, who as a Pastor has real world experience, he gave the same advice, and simply gave 2 experiences that he encountered.

Yes but the issue is why pick two examples that portray non-believers in the worst possible light and then pass them off as typical and relevant examples?

It is precisely the idea that these examples are relevant because this is how non-believer behave that was the objectionable bit.

It is all very well to say that these are just two examples that happened to him, but he specifically picked both of them out of the wealth of experience he has with couples.

The strong implication was that these are typical examples of non-believer behaviour, because other wise how are they relevant? As he said -

"These are the kinds of situations pastors have to deal with every day."

Really? Tax fraud?

The excuse that these examples are not in fact typical of non-believer behaviour, not typical of issues that a Christian faces when in a relationship with non-believers, but he just happened to mention them anyway is frankly a little silly. It is really difficult to take it as anything more than cheap point scoring over the morality of Christians and the immorality of non-believers.

I know of Christians who like to beat their wives. I don't think that is a typical example of a Christian nor a typical example of the issues an atheist may have when in a relationship with a Christian.

He is going to beat you would not be high on the list of things I would think an atheist should seriously think about when dating a Christian.

If I gave that example, followed then by another example of say a Christian who likes to picket gay funerals shouting "God hates fags", as the type of issues an atheist in a relationship with a Christian deals with, I would have got exactly the same type of responses that PDN got, and I seriously doubt any of you guys would be defending me as simply picking examples I've seen.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the issue is why pick two examples that portray non-believers in the worst possible light and then pass them off as typical and relevant examples?

Perhaps you missed the part where PDN made clear that both parties in his examples had a point? If he had wanted to pain non-believers in the "worst possible light" there are far better examples I know PDN has first-hand experience of that he could have used.

As you can see this is already turning into an us v. them thing. Tiring. What about x, what about y.

Gurgle

PDN wrote:

the usual anti-Christian trolling tripe about how we're responsible for all the evil in the world and are one step away from killing everyone who doesn't accept our beliefs?

this was in response to:

Gurgle wrote:

Yes, in almost all religions - nothing particularly Christian about it.
'Unbelievers are evil' doesn't require a big leap to 'kill them'.

Its been the basic justification for war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder, rape and pillage for thousands of years.

I think my point was quite clear, it was not an attack on Christianity but on the general abuse of religion for ulterior motives.

- edit - For all that, I think the guy does have an impressive, in-depth knowledge of scripture and doctrine and long experience as a pastor.
Where he falls down is the habit of dismissing us non-christians as trolls where he could as easily have simply clarified a position or a point (as in this case he did afterwards).

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

As you can see this is already turning into an us v. them thing. Tiring. What about x, what about y.

Ditto,

Let's just admit, both parties were at fault for the derailment and move on.

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

I think my point was quite clear, it was not an attack on Christianity but on the general abuse of religion for ulterior motives.

Which was also completely off topic and irrelevant. People jumped on certain posts ( which were directed at the OP ) and started off on different tangents. Others again accused the Christians replying of things that nobody even suggested (Christian or not). You can see how it could be wearying on a Moderator to wade through the same thing time and time again.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

If he had wanted to pain non-believers in the "worst possible light" there are far better examples I know PDN has first-hand experience of that he could have used.

I'm struggling to find your central point here Prinz.

Are you saying that PDN was justified in using these examples when discussing the general topic because they are in fact typical example of how non-believers behave, that these are good examples to pick to highlight the issues a Christian might encounter with a non-Christian?

Or are you saying that they are not typical examples of how non-believers behave and he was just mentioning them anyway without any further implication?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Or are you saying that they are not typical examples of how non-believers behave and he was just mentioning them anyway without any further implication?

They were examples. Not generalisations. Not typical behaviour. Not casting aspersions. Examples. Simple as. No need for the righteous indignation which ensued.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

They were examples. Not generalisations. Not typical behaviour. Not casting aspersions. Examples. Simple as. No need for the righteous indignation which ensued.

But this is what I'm saying. Examples of what? Behaviour that has no relevance to the thread? Things some people do but I'm sure the OP's boyfriend wouldn't? Very non-typical behaviour for a non-believer?

Examples that are not relevant to the discussion are pointless. And if this example was to be taken as relevant to the discussion then there is an implication that this is a typical way non-believer behave. Otherwise what is the purpose of mentioning them?

This "I'm just saying.." excuse is really quite tiresome.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

But this is what I'm saying. Examples of what? Behaviour that has no relevance to the thread?
Examples that are not relevant to the discussion are pointless. And if this example was to be taken as relevant to the discussion then there is an implication that this is a typical way non-believer behave.This "I'm just saying.." excuse is really quite tiresome

The poster asked for other people to give insights into relationships such as hers and how other people viewed them. PDN gave that, and also gave two EXAMPLES that he has recently come across in just such relationships. It was a warning of the pitfalls which may occur because of the positions of BOTH parties to the relationship, he was not insinuating that the non-believer is unsuitable, or destined to sabotage the relationship.

Right so am I to take it that all references to crusades, purges, witch hunts, forced conversions, sexual and physical abuse, etc etc etc..... are now at your behest to be dropped from all threads? Because let's face it.. you're just saying right.... Murder, rape, abuse, manipulation and brainwashing - are they typical behaviour of Christians?

The thread about the Church being in over it's head because shock horror a clergyman had the temerity to give his opinion on something topical.. just saying right.. so it's tiresome.

I'm out. This forum in general is descending into a farce unfortunately.

Turtwig

For the sake of sanity, and our dignity PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD

Edit: Sorry PDN, this was mainly my fault.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

The thread about the Church being in over it's head because shock horror a clergyman had the temerity to give his opinion on something topical.. just saying right.. so it's tiresome.

That is the whole point. They aren't just saying, they are making a point about Christianity in general, a point you guys all object to because it is unfair generalisation based on minority cases :rolleyes:

What is good for the goose etc ...

I would love to know where this unlimited understanding and benefit of the doubt you guys have for each other is when an atheist or non-Christian poster posts something you consider unfair or generalising.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

For the sake of sanity, and our dignity PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD

You love it really ... :P

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the whole point. They aren't just saying, they are making a point about Christianity in general, a point you guys all object to because it is unfair generalisation based on minority cases :rolleyes:.

That thread made no point about Christianity in general...

Wicknight wrote: »

I would love to know where this unlimited understanding and benefit of the doubt you guys have for each other is when an atheist or non-Christian poster posts something.

You may notice I have just been busy thanking your posts on a different thread. The unlimited understanding and benefit of the doubt start to wane when threads descend into mock horror and the deliberate taking of offence over really anything that can be seized on. I have no problem with atheists or other non-Christians posting sensibly, using examples etc. The problems start when the examples PDN used, quickly turned into 'religion is the cause of wars, genocide etc.' in the space of a few posts. And then we might aswell all give up. If people had responded rationally and seriously the thread may have stayed on topic and on good terms. Nobody was preventing an atheist from offering up similar examples.

achtungbarry

The fact that this thread even exists speaks volumes.

PDN uses a "do as I say not as I do" style of modding. He is confrontational, abrasive and something of a bully. He is happy to dish out insults yet threatens bans at the drop of a hat for things he is guilty of himself.

I have said it before and I will say it again, he is not mod material.

No other mod on Christianity is involved as as much friction as he is. He brings these problems on himself. As I said, the fact that this thread even exists speaks volumes.

It has been a few months now since I blocked him and basically stopped posting here due to his behaviour.

I never thought I would end up blocking a mod to be honest.

I am quite sure he is a nice and decent person personally but his attitude and behaviour and above all hypocrisy do him no favours here.




Awaits ban.

Turtwig

achtungbarry wrote: »

He is confrontational, abrasive and something of a bully....
I am quite sure he is a nice and decent person personally...

Which is it now?

Quote mining ftw

achtungbarry

achtungbarry wrote: »

but his attitude and behaviour and above all hypocrisy do him no favours here.

I'm sure personally, he is a decent chap. His behaviour on this board is all I would have an issue with.

Zombrex

achtungbarry wrote: »

I'm sure personally, he is a decent chap. His behaviour on this board is all I would have an issue with.

Which is understandable, people are often very different online than in real life. In real life I'm an bastard :P

prinz

achtungbarry wrote: »

I'm sure personally, he is a decent chap. His behaviour on this board is all I would have an issue with.

Well achtungbarry a quick browse through your posting history on this forum threw some light upon your point of view. Your posts have been argumentative, inciteful, in breach of the charter, and out of all of your posts here most have been aimed at PDN and his moderating skills. Perhaps if you contributed in an adult manner, and within the bounds and rules applicable to us all on this forum you wouldn't have any problems. It seems you were incapable of that though despite numerous warnings.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is understandable, people are often very different online than in real life. In real life I'm an bastard :P

My science! If boards is your nice persona you must start every morning with a roast toddler :eek: :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Toodles, Barry.

Fanny Cradock

I had a feeling that this thread was going to turn into an extension of the other thread. Good idea Jimi but there are just to many disgruntled posters out there for this to ever end well.

So, again, another thread is locked because we can't get along. I'm trying to be objective here, but I can see that the hostility has emanated form one side.

Just to reiterate, I think that PDN is an invaluable contributor to this forum. I believe that he has proved himself to be equal or better in many debates and this has clearly ruffled some feathers along the way. I guess the truth hurts

Anyway, it appears that we are entering the silly season again. I would encourage people to read the charter and abide by it. In a nut shell, this means not insulting members, listening to the opinions of others i.e. not soap boxing, heeding the warnings of mods and generally being nice. I'll not have this forum descend into its regrettable past. Any messing from Christians or non-Christians will be dealt with harshly.

If you don't agree to these terms, please explain your grievances below.

Thread locked :P