ARCHIVE: Zakath is Genuine!

[Zakath]

Define "sell out." --in a nice way, of course.

Context???

 

[Granite]

O.K., all "non-Christians," gather together in a little circle for a pep talk:

*whispering* Zak, Granite, Purex, anyone else here: I have no problem whatsoever with you guys being nice to any of the Christians on this website, just don't sell out.

O.K. break! *clap*

:chuckle:

Don'tcha worry, I'll keep the non-faith.

 

[erinmarie]

Originally Posted by julie21
I think that who individuals want to talk to throughout the board is up to the individual, and they should not be judged against for merely being civil to others. If a Christian converses with an atheist about Christ, the time of day or the weather, they should be free to do that without condemnation. If what the Edge is doing is wrong in the eyes of the Lord, he will no doubt find this out one glorious day, as we all will be judged for how we treated our fellow man, Christian, atheist, agnostic, sinner, whatever. Or, if it was noticed by others that he was beginning to slip into their way of non-belief, I am sure that he would be shown this in a brotherly Christian way. Until then, I am sure that The Edge is a prayerful person, and has/will look to the Lord for guidance in what he should do in this matter.If Christians only spoke to Christians, there would not be much growth in the Lord's body, and we would not be doing the Lord's work.

SOTK:

I haven't completely kept up with this whole thread, but I have read a little. I agree with Julie in that there is no reason why Christians can not converse or have friendships with non-believers. I have a few friends who are non-believers. I have learned a lot from them and I pray that they have learned a lot from me. As a Christian, I do think it's important that we don't give our non-believing friends the wrong idea. It's important that we don't compromise our belief in Christ nor God's Word for the sake of friendships or for being accepted. If we do this, we're doing more harm than good.

The Edge,

One thing I have noticed in this thread is that you haven't dropped it. As Christians, once we publicly confront eachother on differences or wrongs, I think we should drop it. It seems to me that Erin Marie has done this. I think after you confront a brother and sister, the rest is up to God.

In Christ,

SOTK

I wanted at first repost my original post, which has nothing to do with the conversation “the edge” had been having with any of the “unbelievers”. I agree with both SOTK and Julie, and also state that I am very fond of the fellowship I have had with Zakath in the past. He is a wise man, and good in essence, he is just not saved by the Grace of God, and should be. (Just thought I’d add that, being that this is the “Zakath is Genuine” thread)
I have decided however, not to repost the original post, just because I feel that Apologetic Jedi had responded to “the edge” in a manner I saw as accurate, and I had nothing to add.

 

[erinmarie]

Turbo, leave it alone. She smeared me, and she smeared me big time. She does not even know me. So how can you get on my case for smearing her, when she made all those horrid judgements about me? Don't defend her. She has no right any more than I do. Just cus she's your sister in law doesn't mean you have to take sides. You got to admit, she was out of line.

Now I ask you again to leave it alone. Just because you're a moderator doesn't mean you are always right. I have no problem with you or Erin anymore. I'll accept her apology at any time. And as I said in my other posts, if I offended her I am sorry.

I certainly will not apologize to you, especially after slamming Turbo for his imput. He's obviously not just defending me here, he has made many valid points. Smear, smear, smear. Bla, Bla, Bla.
I've already pointed out where I take offense with you, "the edge". I said it loud and clear in my first post, which I also stated I stand by in it's entirety. I'm absolutely not offended by anything you said to me in any earlier posts except for one big thing. I am absolutely offended that you would address Turbo in such a scathing matter. He was hardly defending me in the first place! He was merely pointing out the falacy of your ad hominom argument. And I find no fault in jumping to the defense of a relative or friend, if I found that you were in an argument with Lucky even, and I agreed with Lucky, I would defend him to the best of my ability.

And I was not out of line in the least. Like I said before, I stick to my original post.

 

[The Edge]

Stick to it then, if you must. You're wrong, and you made false accusations. If you still feel you can truthfully stand by them, so be it. But, you are wrong. I know it, God knows it, and nearly everyone else knows it. But I'm letting it go now. This is my final post on this matter. Maybe I didn't need to slam Turbo. It really does not involve him. I apologize to Turbo. He's probably jumping to your defense because he's your relative and friend, and because both of you subscribe to that "nicer than God" stuff. But that stuff is not the issue. As I stated before, and still stand by with absolute firmness, you accused me falsely, judged me, and were wrong. End of story. You won't apologize, so be it. This matter should finally be laid to rest. But if you ever try that again, rest assured I will defend myself tenfold. You won't ruin this awesome board for me with your horrible false accusations.


"The Edge"

 

[drbrumley]

I was unaware of Enyart's legal history. After I verified it for myself, I was hurt, angry, sad. And then I
left the PC and went and hugged my kids. I also played basketball and soccer with them, and went out
and bought them milkshakes.

We live in a fallen world, from which no one is immune. There, but by the Grace of God go I.

Dave

What's this about?

 

[The Edge]

It's about Bob Enyart and his conviction for child abuse in the late 90s.

 

[drbrumley]

I apologize to Turbo. He's probably jumping to your defense because he's your relative and friend, and because both of you subscribe to that "nicer than God" stuff.
"The Edge"

:darwinsm: Turbo is "nicer than God" ?

Man I don't know what board your watching.

 

[drbrumley]

It's about Bob Enyart and his conviction for child abuse in the late 90s.

What about it?

 

[The Edge]

Some Bob Enyart thread that Erin posted earlier....page 7 or 8 I think.

 

[drbrumley]

Some Bob Enyart thread that Erin posted earlier....page 7 or 8 I think.

Ok, you take issue with this conviction? You have brought it up. Is there a reason why?

 

[The Edge]

Reread my post

 

[drbrumley]

Thanks for the good rep Zakath. Even though it is supposed to be a bad rep, I will consider the source who gave it.

You still can't get over getting your butt whipped by Enyart in your debate with him.

 

[The Edge]

What debate was that, between Enyart and Zakath?

 

[Turbo]

What debate was that, between Enyart and Zakath?

Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath

 

[The Edge]

Ahh....I never looked at the Battle Royales yet. Maybe I'll check it out.

 

[Turbo]

:up:

 

[Zakath]

Thanks for the good rep Zakath. Even though it is supposed to be a bad rep, I will consider the source who gave it.

Are you implying that I'm contrary?!

:chuckle:

You still can't get over getting your butt whipped by Enyart in your debate with him.

And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

PureX said: I would just like to point out here, that posting some facts about Enyart's past is just posting some facts about Enyart's past. It's not passing judgment to post facts about someone. If you think those facts make Enyart look bad, it's YOU who is passing that judgment, not the person who posted the facts.

I agree. Posting facts is just that, even if the facts are falsehoods – even as some of Edge’s post was. However, those that read Edge’s post got more than just facts didn’t they. They got to hear how Edge believes “That is certainly someone I would not want to follow. Well if I was an unbeliever, I would never want to be a Christian if that is how I saw them act.” Don’t get me wrong, I think Edge has the right to judge, but for you to pretend that those types of statements aren’t judgment leaves me wondering what you think a judgement is?

My main point was about Edge being two-faced – telling someone they shouldn’t judge and the doing the same himself, then calling her a hypocrite, and himself chivalrous. --- It made me laugh at least.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I said: You mean you want to slam the friend of many people here and then not have to answer for your own post. You’d like the cheap shots to go un-countered if at all possible. And you'd like us to think of you as chivalrous in the meantime.

Edge said I never said this. I fully expect to answer for my post.

Well, edge that’s not exactly what you said to begin with. You said 1) it’s wrong to make accusations without knowing someone; then 2) you made several accusations with some falsehoods mixed in with some truth, and then 3) you claimed that we shouldn’t bother bringing it up because you didn’t want to talk about it. I’ll admit I phrased it in a different way than you did. I cut out the fluff from your post, and whittled it down to the impression you left me and likely others with.

I agree that you have the right to answer false charges. I’m referring to your two-faced and hypocritical approach of telling someone they are a bad person for doing exactly what you did, and then telling us that you were actually “chivalrous” despite the current evidence to the contrary.