"While I can provide clear, trust worthy answers to the points you raised, I would be taken in another direction that I did not intend for the moment so I have decided to let you have the last word on that part of the discussion…at least for now."

Possible paraphrasion: "I am able to provide sound and concise answers to your some of your questions, however, I choose not to...because I didn't plan to discuss that paradigm I will ALLOW (Very condescending! Nice Touch!) you to close out that road of discussion, until I want to pick it up later (Advocating your free will)."

My interpretation of a statement I screened and edited from your post sir, much akin to what is done to motion pictures. Using the context of maturity only (deliberately being stipulative to ONE theme) I'd have to say that it's a deplorable point-of-view and deserved to be Rated X.

If, by using this allusion I have made myself in anyway unclear, I trust Proud Open Mind can perhaps clarify.

"My positions and views are shaped by Him, as best as I can articulate them. In your case, you are agnostic, and therefore you shape your views based on your own natural thinking and intelligence."

And what, pray tell, do you use to articulate? There are some that would agree that "Truth is the sworn enemy of Faith." I don't agree (It's probably the same people that came up with the concepts behind the label of "Agnostic") but I hope, for your sake, in that excerpt you weren't suggesting that agnostics have the monopoly on Reason/Intelligence and Christians don't. Why that would mean...uh...what would that mean?

"Many of our people would therefore not want to listen to such a debate based on two divergent views."

Funny. "Our" people, instead of "HIS" people.
That's one or the reasons that the Book of Job was recorded- to show divergent views and give reason and understanding to events and life conditions some would find objectionable. And if "your" people haven't read the entire Bible moreover the Book of Job shame on them for their display of devotion.

"...People win arguments daily (as serious as court cases and trivial as whose plans for the upcoming holiday are the best for the family) and are wrong. Winning does not necessarily make one right."

Discussions and arguments are two different things if you take into consideration the context of motive by which each respective orator speaks. In my opinion, arguments are about winning, discussions about understanding. The line between them is oft blurred, but certain tenets are not.
As a Christian, you, sir, do not voice my beliefs. My God has instructed me to, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's...And to God that which is His"
For me that can be interpreted: I am to respect Caesar's (Everyman's) right to exist, eat, sleep, intercourse, discourse, and his ability or inability to make up his own mind about the experiences and situation that are a part of his world, his manhood, his culture etc.

That same Christ-spoken mandate has given me dominion over MY world (talents, space, possessions etc), which revolves around me. Not The World. Not your world. Mine. And if I choose to present that world to my God as sacrifice that is my right and responsibility. If I choose to give MY world to you that's is also my right and responsibility.

It's quite apparent now sir, you lack the ability to grasp multiple points-of-view.

After all, it's virtually impossible that we could take Christ's example with not judging the prostitute ‘caught in the act’ and apply HIS sentiments to how do we relate toward virosexuals (or as they are ignorantly called by the trendsheep, "homosexuals"). After all, it is only "agnostics" (those that use their own natural thinking and intelligence) that may consider that the same point of view Christ had for taxes could be applied to a gamut of civil conditions from movie ratings to voting.

I generally make a rule of not assuming, but I’m going to assume you and the majority of “your people” voted in the last General Election. Why? From Samuel’s Eight Chapter, you ought to know how HE feels about that. Oh, that’s right…you suggested through your post that agnostics use reason. Followers of Christ and His Plan don’t do that if your suggestivism holds true.

Allow me to draw the lines of delineation as far as I’m concerned. I am allowed to do that aren’t I, or do you need to have a committee to debate my freedoms?
I am sick to my stomach of The “Church Militant” attacking fundamental concepts because their Headquarter Organizations deem it Anti-Religious, therefore Anti-Righteous. I am sick of idiots like George Bush Jr. playing the part of some reincarnated Moses wannabe (speech impediment and all), and I am sick of people who call themselves Christian Apostles but do not respect free will or thought without influence as Almighty God does. I am thoroughly sick--but tolerant. Tolerant because that's what a close relationship with Christ brings. I'm not Hellbent/Heavenbent on changing things I can't.

My experiences, (like Job’s) are an intimate gift from God, whether they be good, bad or ugly to you. What I do with them help define my purpose and reason according to the life I live in my God’s eyes.
You claim to serve, follow, admire and adore a god, whom YOU say is just. All well and good, but bear in mind that with that same point of view – Justice, mind you…
You would’ve ignored Hosea’s message because he married Gomer, accused Isaiah for being an exhibitionist (Chapter 20) and Killed Christ for doing witchcraft [long before He'd get anywhere near a cross]. The pun is how all of this would've been accomplished seeing as how stoning and crucifixions aren't placeable on any Plays/Films Control Board gamut.


Reconsider. Job 32 and Isaiah 42: 18-25. I am nudged into suggestion: please read those and take them into you and “your” people’s respective considerations.