There are more ways than one to get information out of people. Just like you're doing in posts 985, 989, 996, 997 and this one. I though you had been warned about that. Perhaps I was mistaken.
This is a religion forum and it is perfectly natural to ask someone where they stand on a religious point. For example, to ask metmom on her stand on infant baptism makes sense in a debate ON infant baptism. To ask her her stand on the Trinity makes sense in any discussion on the Trinitarian nature of Christ.
There's a difference between ASKING for information and PRESUMING information and asking someone to deny or confirm it. It falls into the category of the *Have you stopped beating your wife yet?* kind of question.
My silence on an issue does not mean I either agree or disagree. I see presuming my answer based on my *silence* is an underhanded way of trying to manipulate information out of me. Finding out information by the process of elimination (as I see this as being) rather than asking would IMO, qualify as finessing the guidelines. I will not play those games.
One is an honest inquiry, the other taints the image others have of that person for someone who is not familiar with the discussions. I've made my positions very clear in the past. A lurker would not necessarily know that and come to erroneous conclusions about what I believe. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
To ask her her stand on the Trinity makes sense in any discussion on the Trinitarian nature of Christ.
If that were the what the discussion were about in the first place, yeah. However, to throw it in to the mix for NO good reason makes it a red herring and of suspicious motive.
I am not the only one on the receiving end of that kind of behavior, hence the courtesy ping to others who have been involved.
As for said mentioned poster, to ping or not to ping, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to ping out of courtesy or not to ping as per RM's instructions......
I'll let the RM decide.
Post 985, Metmom's group is not Christian. The starting point is seeing what one has or has not in common. If a group denies the basic dogmas of Christian faith, then debating details with a member of said group is futile. Now, if you want to see "Inquisitional Fervour", you just have to pick up some of said poster's post calling us Christians names tossed in with every allegation. The posts smack of hatred.Now, asking a person if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior is not asking for personal information.
No asking for personal info here
Post 989 --> question to RM, no question to you and not asking you or the RM for any personal information
Post 996, --> let's see, the original post of yours made incorrect statements about the history and you were then asked "What about the history of your group? The PCA, LCMS, etc have their catechisms that define what they believe, but your groups? --> No asking for personal info here. I didn't ask for your personal history but for your group's history AND beliefs. Even the Jehovah's witnesses have their beliefs available to peruse.
Post 997 --> question to you on whether you THINK that the church went into apostasy in the 1st century -- no personal information here. I'm asking you what you t h i n k, not for any personal information