Christian Discussion Thread III

[Tarsonis Survivors]

He promised he wouldn't curse the ground or kill every living thing, "as long as the Earth Remains." getting into semantics here, the Apocalypse of Revelation is not the destruction of the world, but rather its purification into the New Earth.

Is it written that the Apocalypse of revelation will come about when the world is evil?

Is it not written that after such an Apocalypse the world will live in harmony? Those that survive that is...

It comes about when the Lord chooses.

Yes, and I would want others to do Good unto me.

Is there not an objective Good? If I think that humans should have one limb is and I want to saw yours off is that doing Good unto you?

In you're mind it would be good. But I think that's a rather obviously bad scenario. The point I'm trying to make is that the Golden Rule shouldn't taken quite so literally as he's trying to make it.

A lactose-intolerant man undoubtedly would not want to have someone give him milk to drink. Does that mean he should not give it if the situation arises?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You're point is worthless, because you speak for no one but yourself.

I'm the only one who is Anti-Religious, impressive achievement. If I do say so myself.
I speak for those who don't want to listen, if people on the street don't want to hear a preacher speaking bullshit then he should go, because he is doing nothing but being an annoying fuck.

You claim to speak for them, but you don't you. You speak only for yourself. They have not employed you to speak on their behalf.

And your point again is useless. That preacher has the same right to the sidewalk as all those people. It's called free speech. Surely you're not against that, are you?

[Menassa]

Is it written that the Apocalypse of revelation will come about when the world is evil?

Is it not written that after such an Apocalypse the world will live in harmony? Those that survive that is...

It comes about when the Lord chooses.

Exactly, humanity, being good or evil has nothing to do with it.

Yes, and I would want others to do Good unto me.

Is there not an objective Good? If I think that humans should have one limb is and I want to saw yours off is that doing Good unto you?

In you're mind it would be good. But I think that's a rather obviously bad scenario.

I don't think it is, it illistrates how something can be good to some, and bad to others.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Golden Rule shouldn't taken quite so literally as he's trying to make it.

Lamah Loh?

A lactose-intolerant man undoubtedly would not want to have someone give him milk to drink. Does that mean he should not give it if the situation arises?

Depends on how intolerant he is, if it would be death he should seek his protein sources elsewhere...

[Blasveck]

*shrugs*

I'm 90 percent certain that the above is part of some mainstream Christian denomination.

Which muddled the issue of the Golden Rule vs Evangelism even further. Who's correct?

It's actually all denominations that believe that "Conversion" is on the shoulders of the individual. Evangelism is not the same as "Converting" someone. Converting someone, suggests an overthrow of an individuals mind. This is not the case. Evangelism is simply "Spreading the Good News." It is the individual's right, (given by God) to accept or reject the message. Some more zealous denominations might employ different methods of evangelism, but the conversion is never forced.

Ah. So it isn't on the shoulders of the individual to 'discover' the Good News?

Hm. I was always told otherwise. Though, evangelism must be restricted at times.

Not everybody wants to hear the message.

[Siburria]

ima just kick myself out before my inner athiest/troll wake up

[Neo Rome Republic]

I'm the only one who is Anti-Religious, impressive achievement. If I do say so myself.
I speak for those who don't want to listen, if people on the street don't want to hear a preacher speaking bullshit then he should go, because he is doing nothing but being an annoying fuck.

You claim to speak for them, but you don't you. You speak only for yourself. They have not employed you to speak on their behalf.

And your point again is useless. That preacher has the same right to the sidewalk as all those people. It's called free speech. Surely you're not against that, are you?

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

[Blasveck]

You claim to speak for them, but you don't you. You speak only for yourself. They have not employed you to speak on their behalf.

And your point again is useless. That preacher has the same right to the sidewalk as all those people. It's called free speech. Surely you're not against that, are you?

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

Acting as hostile as you are really isn't helping your case.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's actually all denominations that believe that "Conversion" is on the shoulders of the individual. Evangelism is not the same as "Converting" someone. Converting someone, suggests an overthrow of an individuals mind. This is not the case. Evangelism is simply "Spreading the Good News." It is the individual's right, (given by God) to accept or reject the message. Some more zealous denominations might employ different methods of evangelism, but the conversion is never forced.

Ah. So it isn't on the shoulders of the individual to 'discover' the Good News?

Hm. I was always told otherwise. Though, evangelism must be restricted at times.

Not everybody wants to hear the message.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You claim to speak for them, but you don't you. You speak only for yourself. They have not employed you to speak on their behalf.

And your point again is useless. That preacher has the same right to the sidewalk as all those people. It's called free speech. Surely you're not against that, are you?

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

Because most of us are secure enough in our beliefs that we're not afraid by a harmless man with a book and a microphone.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

Acting has hostile as you are really isn't helping your case.

Sometimes it's necessary.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

Because most of us are secure enough in our beliefs that we're not afraid by a harmless man with a book and a microphone.

Some of us just don't like being irritated. Apparently if someone is a bad singer I'm ''insecure'' if I don't want to listen, by your logic.

[Blasveck]

Acting has hostile as you are really isn't helping your case.

Sometimes it's necessary.

The same could be said of evangelism.

Ironically enough, with your attitude in this thread, it's almost as if you're doing the thing that you hate.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Sometimes it's necessary.

The same could be said of evangelism.

Ironically enough, with your attitude in this thread, it's almost as if you're doing the thing that you hate.

I'm not preaching Atheism, nor am I say anything bad about Christianity.
I'm simply discussing a scenario of someone being annoying to certain people.

[Benuty]

You claim to speak for them, but you don't you. You speak only for yourself. They have not employed you to speak on their behalf.

And your point again is useless. That preacher has the same right to the sidewalk as all those people. It's called free speech. Surely you're not against that, are you?

Yes, because the first thing Anti-Religious people want to do, is hear the ''good news''.
No I'm not. Still, if no one wants to listen, why not take that into consideration? Why continue to be an annoying dickwad?

I believe Galatia solves this matter.

[Blasveck]

The same could be said of evangelism.

Ironically enough, with your attitude in this thread, it's almost as if you're doing the thing that you hate.

I'm not preaching Atheism, nor am I say anything bad about Christianity.
I'm simply discussing a scenario of someone being annoying to certain people.

You are preaching anti-evangelism.

Y'now, when you could just not post anything in this thread at all.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It comes about when the Lord chooses.

Exactly, humanity, being good or evil has nothing to do with it.

I guess I'm missing the point of you invoking the story of Noah then.

Is there not an objective Good? If I think that humans should have one limb is and I want to saw yours off is that doing Good unto you?

In you're mind it would be good. But I think that's a rather obviously bad scenario.

I don't think it is, it illistrates how something can be good to some, and bad to others.

Except that's overly objectively bad. Simply telling the world about God, isn't the same as cutting off arms en mass.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Golden Rule shouldn't taken quite so literally as he's trying to make it.

Lamah Loh?

Que?

A lactose-intolerant man undoubtedly would not want to have someone give him milk to drink. Does that mean he should not give it if the situation arises?

Depends on how intolerant he is, if it would be death he should seek his protein sources elsewhere...

Sorry, I guess that read differently than I meant it.

You're saying that because a man is Lactose Intolerant, he shouldn't give people milk?

[Neo Rome Republic]

I'm not preaching Atheism, nor am I say anything bad about Christianity.
I'm simply discussing a scenario of someone being annoying to certain people.

You are preaching anti-evangelism.

Y'now, when you could just not post anything in this thread at all.

Which can apply to things outside of Christianity.
You're right I'm wasting my time. Some people just seem to think annoying others counts as ''good behavior''.
Ill stop.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because most of us are secure enough in our beliefs that we're not afraid by a harmless man with a book and a microphone.

Some of us just don't like being irritated. Apparently if someone is a bad singer I'm ''insecure'' if I don't want to listen, by your logic.

Then why are you here?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Some of us just don't like being irritated. Apparently if someone is a bad singer I'm ''insecure'' if I don't want to listen, by your logic.

Then why are you here?

To understand why annoying others is considered a good thing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Then why are you here?

To understand why annoying others is considered a good thing.

With all due respect, You do it in this thread on the Daily. So ask yourself, why do you come here? Do that, and you'll have your answer.

[Neo Rome Republic]

To understand why annoying others is considered a good thing.

With all due respect, You do it in this thread on the Daily. So ask yourself, why do you come here? Do that, and you'll have your answer.

I don't see how? I haven't said a bad thing about a Christianity in a while.
Why am I here? You guys talk about things involving Social or political issues, etc., that peak my interest.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

With all due respect, You do it in this thread on the Daily. So ask yourself, why do you come here? Do that, and you'll have your answer.

I don't see how? I haven't said a bad thing about a Religious belief, in a while.
Why am I here? You guys talk about things involving Social or political issues, etc., that peak my interest.

Really, you don't see how walking into the middle of the Christian Circle Jerk, decrying religion, isn't annoying? Actively claiming that God is a logical fallacy to a room full of people who passionately believe in God, isn't annoying in the slightest, but the opposite is? Come on man you're smarter than that.

There's plenty of threads on NS that pique your interest, I'm sure. Why this one in particular?

[Neo Rome Republic]

I don't see how? I haven't said a bad thing about a Religious belief, in a while.
Why am I here? You guys talk about things involving Social or political issues, etc., that peak my interest.

Really, you don't see how walking into the middle of the Christian Circle Jerk, decrying religion, isn't annoying? Actively claiming that God is a logical fallacy to a room full of people who passionately believe in God, isn't annoying in the slightest, but the opposite is? Come on man you're smarter than that.

There's plenty of threads on NS that pique your interest, I'm sure. Why this one in particular?

I wasn't decrying Religion or God, I was simply talking about a situation in which a person is irritating others. Which isn't decrying the Religion involved, just that said person is themselves being a dickwad.
I may have done it in the past, but recently(for almost a month from Dec.20th till now) I have not decried Religion or God.
Because the other Religious discussions aren't as politically or social issues oriented. If they were, I would hang out over there more.

[Menassa]

Exactly, humanity, being good or evil has nothing to do with it.

I guess I'm missing the point of you invoking the story of Noah then.

It was a response to the claim of pro evangelisim because it would be a shame for God to see a world of evil.

I don't think it is, it illistrates how something can be good to some, and bad to others.

Except that's overly objectively bad. Simply telling the world about God, isn't the same as cutting off arms en mass.

If I would not want to evangelize to someone because I see it as bad I would not want them to do it to me.

Lamah Loh?

Que?

Why not?

Depends on how intolerant he is, if it would be death he should seek his protein sources elsewhere...

Sorry, I guess that read differently than I meant it.

You're saying that because a man is Lactose Intolerant, he shouldn't give people milk?

Not to people who are lactose intolerant... then no.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Really, you don't see how walking into the middle of the Christian Circle Jerk, decrying religion, isn't annoying? Actively claiming that God is a logical fallacy to a room full of people who passionately believe in God, isn't annoying in the slightest, but the opposite is? Come on man you're smarter than that.

There's plenty of threads on NS that pique your interest, I'm sure. Why this one in particular?

I wasn't decrying Religion or God, I was simply talking about a situation in which a person is irritating others. Which isn't decrying the Religion involved, just that said person is themselves being a dickwad.
I may have done in it in the past, but recently(for almost a month from Dec.20th till now) I have not decried Religion or God.
Because the other Religious discussions aren't as politically or socially oriented. If they were, I would hang out over there more.

Just because you haven't done it this particular time doesn't mean you haven't. And when you have, what happens. Those who don't want to engage you simply leave, and those of us who don't mind engaging you stick around. But you still clearly annoy the shit out of us sometimes. Does that mean you shouldn't come here? No, because you hold to you convictions and believe they need a voice, to make others see reason the same way you do.

If a man wants to stand on a side walk and espouse his beliefs via microphone, he is entitled to. No one is required to pay attention to him. But just like you, he's willing to annoy a few people, in the hopes that those who will take to his message, will hear it.