‘What’s in a Name?’

It would seem that David is continuing to spin fanciful, misleading yarns, and all of this stems from getting involved in a conversation that had nothing to do with him. He appears upset and annoyed by the direction of all this, yet if he had left me alone, I would not have any reason to involve him, and would not have done so. Alas, logic and reason are not his strong suits. He launches into a vile, misleading attack on Bruce, then turns his attention to me.

MM does not like it when we use the initials for his website but the ironic thing is, he does the exact same thing to others.

To quote SoM, via a comment he left

If you are going to complain about initials being used and make a mountain out of a mole hill, then one should not use initials for people they do not like. It is hypocrisy to the core and no justification will get MM out of this predictament. But he will try.

We have had many discussions over the years with MM but we never found him reasonable either. We have caught him in distortion after distortion, etc., and he always finds a way to twist things to justify his dishonest discussions.

He won’t admit to it and we have a comment here that says the exact same thing. What makes MM unreasonable is that he only wants common ground under his terms. He will not accept anyone’s else position unless they include content that he approves of.

I do not know Silence of Mind’s name! If I knew it, I would use it, just as I use David’s name, because I know it. David, on the other hand, knows my name. I’ve been using it on my site for ages now. Prior to that, I went by ‘Darth Timon’, and he could have referred to me as that too, but rarely did. Instead, out of laziness or disrespect (or both), David has now tried to justify his failure to respect me or Bruce. As I said before, respect has to be earned. David’s behaviour has so far, given me no cause to honour his demand to call him by his chosen name, yet if he were to be reasonable, and refer to me by name, I’d take a reasonable request seriously in return.

If he continues to make these baseless claims of distortions (I am waiting for him to verify a single one of his claims on this), attack my character, attack Bruce’s character, and behave like a charlatan, I will continue to treat him as he deserves. Luke 6:31 David, refresh yourself on that one.

Of course, the believer cannot accept MM’s conditions or content for they are disobedient to God. His and other agnostic unreasonable behavior is found in how they treat others and distort what took place

injected himself into the discussions I was having with SoM. He dredged up a conversation from ages ago. The only one who is harping on is him.

He forgets that he sent this question to us a long time before he posed it to SofM. We also gave him the same answer and even BG records this timeline. What is unreasonable is that he refuses to accept the right answer.

We have given him the only answer that is possible and he still won’t accept it.


Why does David assume that I ‘forgot’ our previous conversation? I did not forget it, I deemed it irrelevant to my conversation with a completely different person, yet that did not stop David from involving himself. If he had not wanted to continue the discussion, he should have ignored my conversation with SoM.

As for his ‘answer’, it remains a non-answer. There are many, many examples of God ordering killings, yet David won’t do anything other than sit on the fence as to whether he’d obey those commands.

I’m not worried in God killing me. I’m more concerned that fringe lunatics like SoM might hear voices in their head, and then act upon it.

If anyone is being told to kill someone, and we have read about many mothers making this claim when they have killed their children, Then it is not God they are listening to and the so-called fanatic is not a Christian. He is a psychopath.

God has nothing to do with that command or behavior. But agnostics need someone to blame so they blame God and Christianity.

Did David read what I wrote? I did not seek to blame God for the actions of psychopaths. I pointed out my concerns that people like SoM might act upon what they perceived to be God. Fanatics like him sometimes only need a mild push into becoming dangerous. People who speak openly and proudly of being prepared to kill in God’s name should be seen as a cause for concern.

Then we asked our question #2 the other day MM’s response is:

I do not consider myself bad, or sinful. I do not subscribe to the notion of sin.

We do not care if he subscribes to the notion of sin or not. That statement shows that he is being unreasonable about the reality of this life. He also shows that he is deceived and in denial.

Sin exists whether he accepts it or not and as the Bible says, he is a bad person in need of a savior. But he is being unreasonable in his arguments as he trashes other people’s beliefs simply because he disagrees with them.

He also likes to blame others like BG does. He can’t take responsibility for his mistakes or actions. He also likes  accusing others for things they have not done:

I don’t care whether David believes in sin or not. His belief is unreasonable about reality and shows he is in denial. See, I can turn his words around very easily.

I do not trash other people’s beliefs (that’s David’s doing). I oppose interference in my life, and the lives of others, by religious zealots. I would oppose David’s positions and his dishonesty if he were a Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Sikh. His notion and proclamation that I am a bad person is based purely on his twisted opinions of me, and the opinion of an angry man, halfway across the world, is completely irrelevant.

You should consider it good that I do not take your version of Christianity seriously. If I did, I would consider all Christians to be hypocritical, hateful zealots. You often say you speak the truth with love, yet you understand neither love nor truth.

This is from a person who refuses to use our proper name. As if he has the right to decide what we are to be called. That is more unreasonable behavior. he will fight to have Christians and others call transgender, non-binary persons, etc., by their preferred pronouns, etc. yet he will not do it for a Christian.

As I mentioned, David can start by setting a good example. I am merely using the name on his birth certificate, if he wants me to use a different name, he can use my name, and Bruce’s name, instead of playing childish, disrespectful games.

I can and will criticise Christians who behave like fundamentalist lunatics. I will criticise those who unreasonably try to trash my character, and the character of my friends

The only person being unreasonable is MM as he claims to have a right that he refuses to grant those who disagree with him. If he does not like his content critiqued and analyzed, then maybe he should not put it out in the public sphere.

He also makes false accusations in that quote solidifying his hatred for God, and Christians. The only reason he calls people fundamental lunatics is because his preferred lifestyles and ideologies are not accepted or included in God’s kingdom or faith.

Such name-calling shows him to be very unreasonable as he doe snot allow Christians to have their beliefs while he jealously protects his own beliefs and ideologies. He is also unreasonable when it comes to God’s actions as many agnostics are. They always point to certain biblical passages that they think expose God to being worse than evil.

Woah. When have I said I don’t want my content to be discussed? I welcome it, but David needs to understand that when I am attacked by dishonest fundies, I’ll defend my positions. If my positions are critiqued, even in a reasonable manner, I have the right to offer up counter-points. I have never ever suggested anyone else lacks this right either. This is yet another blatant lie on David’s part, yet he complains that he is not respected. MAYBE DON’T LIE!

The rest of this passage is absurd. What beliefs do I not allow Christians to have? What power does David think I possess? I cannot stop him from worshipping, and I wouldn’t stop him, even if I could! This is yet another spurious, dishonest statement from the supposedly pious man of God. He is indulging in projection.

MM and agnostics, along with atheists never accept the truth about God’s actions. They have made up their minds and have kept them closed to the truth so they have justification for their decision to reject Christ and attack his followers.

That is being unreasonable when you will not even listen to the truth but find ways to criticize God and falsely accuse him of sinning. If they won’t accept the truth and keep harping on the same old thing year after year then that is a sign of being unreasonable.

Another sign is MM’s, BG’s, and others continued use of false accusations of lying against those they do not like. We have not lied about their content or their persons. But in the reminds accepting the truth means they have to rethink their positions and conclusions/

It is easier to accuse people falsely than re-examine their positions on different topics. Or accept the truth. So if you want a better life as a Christian, learn to use mercy correctly and avoid discussing anything religious with unreasonable people.

It is casting pearls before swine.

What ‘truth’ do I not accept, David? The truth that God’s Old Testament actions would, if taken in isolation or ordered by human beings, would be seen as abhorrent? Some of the commands and actions involve forcing vanquished foes to eat their own children. What ‘truth’ about God do we find in that, David?

Everything else is unreasonable, hypocritical waffle. Where I have dissected David’s arguments, I have linked to and quoted from his posts. Bruce has done exactly the same. We have both been completely transparent, and to that, all David can do is whine ‘distortion’, without ever explaining how or why.

Please follow and like us: