Self-defense or turning the other cheek?

RationalMadman wrote: . you can reply to people here while blocking them, without unblocking.

Stephen wrote: Nope.  He @-ed me. To do that the coward has to unblock me. I have raised this cowardly practice with moderation and they confirmed it.

RationalMadman wrote: nope he doesn't, if the other person hasn't blocked you and you block them, you can @ them without unblocking them.

Reinterpreting history and the thoughts of 50 million anonymous persons is easy.

Look at Stephen. And the Brother. They are two class A bullies. It doesn't matter whether I block them or engage with them. They just continue to try and attack. Of course they deny it. Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant. Yet the proof is there. 

Tradsecret wrote @ IlDiavolo,  Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant.

 It's your right to block them but what you're doing is to throw the stone to them while blocking them.

Look at Stephen. And the Brother. They are two class A bullies. It doesn't matter whether I block them or engage with them. They just continue to try and attack. Of course they deny it. Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant. Yet the proof is there. 

This is interesting because as far as I see the attacks come from both sides. So, I think you're playing the victim card instead of standing up for your beliefs. 

Stephen and the Brother stand up for what they consider it's wrong. It's your right to block them but what you're doing is to throw the stone to them while blocking them. This is unfair.

I don't know, man. It seems to me that you're always having a temper tantrum each time they find the way to make you fall into contradiction. That explains why you consider them as "sons of the devil" and that they sure will burn in hell for the eternity (I saw it in one of your comments). I mean, neither the devil exists nor the hell nor the eternal punishment, but these beliefs certainly exist as desires of the one who believes it.

Tradesecret wrote; "Stephen is a A class bully  but  I am not the victim".#35

You're [Tradesecret] practically flushing all what you said down the toilet. 

Tradesecret wrote; "Stephen is a A class bully  but  I am not the victim".#35

So, you refuse to turn the other cheek to Stephen. You're practically flushing all what you said down the toilet. 

Jesus would be very disappointed with you. 

So given what I said, the concept of "turning the other cheek" applies to Christians being persecuted for being Christians and following Jesus, are you suggesting that Stephen is persecuting me for being a Christian?  Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, do you condone such behaviour by Stephen or will you call it out? After all, I think if you suggest that - there is a case to suggest he has broken the rules of this site and he should well, be banned.

On the other hand, I don't think his bullish behaviour is to persecute me for being a Christian. I think he just is frustrated over a couple of things. Firstly, I have called him out for the fool that he is. In particular in relation to his gobbledly gook speculations about the Gospels. But more than that, he hates the fact that I am more educated than he is.  This is why he is constantly attempting to make me out to be a liar. And there are other matters too.  Exposing his crassness too.

I don't think my blocking has anything to do with being persecuted for being a Christian. I don't see there is a need here to turn the other cheek.  I blocked him because I can't be bothered with his nonsense. I'm not the only one on this site who has found his tactics stupid and unpleasant.  

I've also given him a way out if he really wants to talk with me. He can apologise and then engage with our discussions. I am more than willing to unblock him if he desires that. But I know that will never happen. He doesn't want to do that. So surprise surprise, he can sit back and pretend he's waiting for me to just unblock him and in the meantime he will have his lackeys, that's you and Brother, attempt to guilt me to unblock him. He's the coward. I have no intention of unblocking him until he does. 

So given what I said, the concept of "turning the other cheek" applies to Christians being persecuted for being Christians and following Jesus, are you suggesting that Stephen is persecuting me for being a Christian?  Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, do you condone such behaviour by Stephen or will you call it out? After all, I think if you suggest that - there is a case to suggest he has broken the rules of this site and he should well, be banned.

On the other hand, I don't think his bullish behaviour is to persecute me for being a Christian. I think he just is frustrated over a couple of things. Firstly, I have called him out for the fool that he is. In particular in relation to his gobbledly gook speculations about the Gospels. But more than that, he hates the fact that I am more educated than he is.  This is why he is constantly attempting to make me out to be a liar. And there are other matters too.  Exposing his crassness too.

I don't think my blocking has anything to do with being persecuted for being a Christian. I don't see there is a need here to turn the other cheek.  I blocked him because I can't be bothered with his nonsense. I'm not the only one on this site who has found his tactics stupid and unpleasant.  

Christians were not persecuted just for being christians but for being a danger for the stabiblity of other religions and cultures. There is nothing more annoying than a bunch of zealots trying to impose their beliefs, this is hardly tolerated by people. Think about Jehova's witnesses and why they are so "beloved", or why the state and church are separated today.

So, putting the useless victimization aside, I only see two adults (you and Stephen) discussing about a very controversial subject, and as any other controversial matter, it can get really heated and tense, turning the arguments into insults very easily. And from what I can make out, the insults come from both sides, the only difference is that you're hiding after throwing the stone, and don't say you don't. I mean, you can do it but this is called cowardice wherever you go.I've also given him a way out if he really wants to talk with me. He can apologise and then engage with our discussions. I am more than willing to unblock him if he desires that. But I know that will never happen. He doesn't want to do that. So surprise surprise, he can sit back and pretend he's waiting for me to just unblock him and in the meantime he will have his lackeys, that's you and Brother, attempt to guilt me to unblock him. He's the coward. I have no intention of unblocking him until he does. 

You're free to block Stephen or whoever you find "unpleasant". The only thing I'm going to tell you is that yours is the typical behavior of the intolerant zealot that hates everyone that doesn't agree with you.  You say to be a christian but your attitude tells otherwise, insulting and calling the users that dissent from you "sons of the devil" (as if it existed, lol). Is this how christians address their enemies? Jesus not only turned the other cheek but also loved his enemies. You're an enbarassment of christianity, imho.

By the way, you blocked Stephen because you can't stand his arguments and how he exposes your endless contradictions. So, I'm not going to call anyone out because this is a problem between you and him that should be resolved like true men.