Sources say his idea of “open dialogue” involves leading questions, moving goalposts, and declaring any disagreement a form of psychological abuse.
The online theology forum was reportedly thrown into yet another spiral this week after a committed free will theist, identified only as “Mark,” announced that he was “done with people who refuse to engage in good faith,” despite having spent the previous 72 hours accusing half the comment section of gaslighting him.
According to witnesses, Mark began with what he described as “simple, honest questions.” These included lines like, “So you’re saying God actually controls everything?” and “If man has no free will, why bother preaching?” and “Do you even believe people make real choices?” When responders attempted to clarify that they affirm human responsibility, secondary causes, and real means, Mark reportedly replied, “That’s not what you said earlier,” and “You’re twisting my words,” and “This is classic gaslighting.”
Sources say the pattern quickly became familiar. Mark would ask a leading question designed to force a caricature, then reject any nuanced answer as evasion. If someone pointed out the misrepresentation, he would accuse them of “making me feel crazy” and “denying my lived experience.” If they declined to continue, he would announce that “no one wants to engage” and that “people are afraid of hard questions.”
“It’s like he’s playing a game where the only winning move is to admit he’s right,” one participant said. “But if you try to explain, you’re dodging. If you correct him, you’re gaslighting. If you leave, you’re scared of the truth. At that point, ‘engagement’ just means ‘agree with me or be abusive.’”
Observers note that Mark’s posts are filled with rhetorical traps: questions that assume his conclusion, definitions that shift mid‑argument, and demands for “yes or no” answers to complex theological issues. When responders refuse to play along, he reportedly takes this as proof that “Calvinists can’t defend their position.” When they do answer, he moves the goalposts and starts a new line of questioning.
The irony, several onlookers noted, is that Mark presents himself as the champion of free, open inquiry while treating any disagreement as a form of manipulation. “He says he wants dialogue,” one elder commented, “but his idea of dialogue is a monologue where everyone else is required to confess they’ve been wrong all along.”
At press time, Mark was reportedly drafting a new post titled “Why No One Will Talk to Me Anymore,” in which he planned to explain that his critics are “afraid of logic,” “unwilling to face hard truths,” and “deeply invested in making me feel like I’m the problem.” Forum moderators were said to be considering a new rule: “If you accuse everyone of gaslighting you, you may be asked to take a break from ‘friendly chats.’”
Comments
Post a Comment