Religious conversions

[Robittybob1]

If that were true, then every religious person on here would be censored, and he/she isn't. Sharing one's faith isn't the same as "preaching." Preaching is when a person who is religious tries to imply that others are wrong to not accept the belief system the "preacher" is trying to promote. I don't see the moderators singling out religious people, IOW.

But when i was finally able to see why I had 2 days in the Sin Bin found it was because I had quoted 2 verses from the Heretical Gospel of Thomas and neither of them were saying you had to be a Christian to be saved or anything like that.

Are you saying I was like "a person who is religious" trying "to imply that others are wrong to not accept the belief system the "preacher" is trying to promote".

Was I ? All it felt like to me was there were lots of people saying I have been telling lies, when I hadn't told any. When I get called a pedophile without cause, a liar without evidence, no wonder I start calling in the spiritual forces to support me. Bw/S keeps on calling me a baby eater for some unknown reason. Where is the logic in all this?
I showed there were atheists claiming atheism is a religion but that wasn't even acknowledged. So Bells can say it isn't but there was evidence others considered it was. So am I going to get banned again for taking a researched position?

 

[Robittybob1]

Yep, this.

Preaching to me, borders on evangelization.

If I say "I'm going to bring down Hellfire" do you think that is preaching? What is it like? It is like saying "I'm going to report you to the moderators". "I'm appealing for justice", "I'm pleading for you all to abide by the rules".
"I plead for justice" is that OK but "I'm going to bring down Hell fire" isn't? It is the same thought.

 

[Robittybob1]

How does an atheist preach? No one is calling it "preaching" when a theist talks about why they believe. It's preaching when the talk is about "bringing down hell fire" or fighting a glorious battle for the Lord or whatever.

It's not preaching when an atheist says I see no evidence for God. I don't know what "preaching" in a similar vein would be in the atheist context.

If an atheist says something like "Christians are idiots for believing there is a God when there isn't." That to me is preaching by an atheist and we get that day in day out. Trooper would be the worst culprit.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If that were true, then every religious person on here would be censored, and that's simply not happening. Sharing one's faith isn't the same as "preaching." Preaching is when a person who is religious tries to imply that others are wrong to not accept the belief system the "preacher" is trying to promote. I don't see the moderators singling out religious people, IOW.

There aren't many religious people who partake in these discussions.

So when a person is not religious, or, irreligious, and tries to imply that others are wrong for not accepting the belief system they or their icons are trying to promote, is that somehow, not preaching?

The religious keep a low profile because their view aren't welcome here, unless they are passive, and/or trying to bring their religiosity up to a standard that the atheist will let slip (such as theistic evolution), or just mildly kick them around for a laugh.

This is the future.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

If an atheist says something like "Christians are idiots for believing there is a God when there isn't." That to me is preaching by an atheist and we get that day in day out. Trooper would be the worst culprit.

No, that isn't "preaching". That is behaving badly if they actually use the word "idiots". It's not preaching. It's giving their opinion in a way that isn't very civil. If I were the moderator I wouldn't allow that either. I would allow that thought however (with the idiot part).

 

[Seattle]

If I say "I'm going to bring down Hellfire" do you think that is preaching? What is it like? It is like saying "I'm going to report you to the moderators". "I'm appealing for justice", "I'm pleading for you all to abide by the rules".
"I plead for justice" is that OK but "I'm going to bring down Hell fire" isn't? It is the same thought.

If you say I'm going to report you that would be better than the Hell fire comments. No one knows what you mean by that.

 

[Seattle]

But when i was finally able to see why I had 2 days in the Sin Bin found it was because I had quoted 2 verses from the Heretical Gospel of Thomas and neither of them were saying you had to be a Christian to be saved or anything like that.

Are you saying I was like "a person who is religious" trying "to imply that others are wrong to not accept the belief system the "preacher" is trying to promote".

Was I ? All it felt like to me was there were lots of people saying I have been telling lies, when I hadn't told any. When I get called a pedophile without cause, a liar without evidence, no wonder I start calling in the spiritual forces to support me. Bw/S keeps on calling me a baby eater for some unknown reason. Where is the logic in all this?
I showed there were atheists claiming atheism is a religion but that wasn't even acknowledged. So Bells can say it isn't but there was evidence others considered it was. So am I going to get banned again for taking a researched position?

I totally agree that people shouldn't be calling you a pedophile, liar, baby eater. Those people are out of line and I think most everyone here knows it.

Leave the spiritual forces out of it and just report them. Don't turn into another Mazulu

 

[Robittybob1]

I totally agree that people shouldn't be calling you a pedophile, liar, baby eater. Those people are out of line and I think most everyone here knows it.

Leave the spiritual forces out of it and just report them. Don't turn into another Mazulu

As I said to the moderators, I had reported many of these incidences but nothing seemed to be done about it. So it appeared useless to report it. OK so I supposed to write to a super moderator, but how was I supposed to know that.
I think it has been really good on the forum today but maybe it is only that way because Balerion has me on "Ignore".

 

[Seattle]

As I said to the moderators, I had reported many of these incidences but nothing seemed to be done about it. So it appeared useless to report it. OK so I supposed to write to a super moderator, but how was I supposed to know that.
I think it has been really good on the forum today but maybe it is only that way because Balerion has me on "Ignore".

I had you and Mazulu on "ignore" until recently. When someone won't take a break from posting off-topic stuff non-stop that's what people have to do. People also get tired of the "Hell fire" stuff as I mentioned. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding in terminology but it sounds "crazy" to some

 

[Robittybob1]

I had you and Mazulu on "ignore" until recently. When someone won't take a break from posting off-topic stuff non-stop that's what people have to do. People also get tired of the "Hell fire" stuff as I mentioned. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding in terminology but it sounds "crazy" to some

Yes when there is several lines of discussion going on at the same time ignore might be the way just to see your opponent. That might be why sometimes when I do butt in I appear to be "ignored". OK I haven't used it as yet.

There was a mighty story (OT) where the prophet Elijah brings down fire from heaven to prove his God was better than the Baal God. So one day when the atheists want some proof maybe we will have to give it a go. lol

 

[Aqueous Id]

when a person is not religious, or, irreligious, and tries to imply that others are wrong for not accepting the belief system they or their icons are trying to promote, is that somehow, not preaching?

It's not the plain meaning of the word [google]: [to] deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.

The religious keep a low profile because their view aren't welcome here,

They are quite active. They pop up in the science threads all the time, claiming that science is broken, that it's the product of robots controlled by an elite, that evolution is lie, Big Bang theory is a lie, climate science is a lie, that relativity is a lie, and that anyone whose name they can associate with science (usu. Darwin, Newton and Einstein) is wrong and the robots have foolishly adopted that person's work, and also that the most obvious cases (the ones they have heard of) involving scientific discovery invalidates the "truth" of science, since there is a apparent conflict between the old and new science.

unless they are passive, and/or trying to bring their religiosity up to a standard that the atheist will let slip

Most folks will respond when they see factual errors or invalid conclusions.

(such as theistic evolution),

As you know a majority of Christians follow religions which embrace evolution. Fundamentalism rejects evolution by insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's the minority view. Add to this all Christians who are literate to some degree in science. They will tend to reject fundamentalism and accept evolution.

or just mildly kick them around for a laugh.

You shouldn't be surprised by the reaction science-literate people have to the trashing of science by fundamentalists. It deserves to be known for what it is--the glorification of ignorance. It's pretty basic to human behavior that intelligence will dominate ignorance, and, when necessary, unleash scorn for ignorance when it acts out in class.

This is the future.

All things go through phases. Fundamentalism is a fairly new phenomenon in the history of Christianity, not the foundation. It produced a future (our past and present) which is riddled with disastrous results of the glorification of ignorance.

The future is bright, because intelligence has a slight edge over ignorance.

 

[Robittybob1]

It's not the plain meaning of the word [google]: [to] deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.

They are quite active. They pop up in the science threads all the time, claiming that science is broken, that it's the product of robots controlled by an elite, that evolution is lie, Big Bang theory is a lie, climate science is a lie, that relativity is a lie, and that anyone whose name they can associate with science (usu. Darwin, Newton and Einstein) is wrong and the robots have foolishly adopted that person's work, and also that the most obvious cases (the ones they have heard of) involving scientific discovery invalidates the "truth" of science, since there is a apparent conflict between the old and new science.


Most folks will respond when they see factual errors or invalid conclusions.


As you know a majority of Christians follow religions which embrace evolution. Fundamentalism rejects evolution by insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's the minority view. Add to this all Christians who are literate to some degree in science. They will tend to reject fundamentalism and accept evolution.


You shouldn't be surprised by the reaction science-literate people have to the trashing of science by fundamentalists. It deserves to be known for what it is--the glorification of ignorance. It's pretty basic to human behavior that intelligence will dominate ignorance, and, when necessary, unleash scorn for ignorance when it acts out in class.


All things go through phases. Fundamentalism is a fairly new phenomenon in the history of Christianity, not the foundation. It produced a future (our past and present) which is riddled with disastrous results of the glorification of ignorance.

The future is bright, because intelligence has a slight edge over ignorance.

One of your least convincing posts - Biased views quite evident. Sorry but preaching definition needs to be upgraded to include atheists speaking against religions as well.

 

[James R]

Preaching is different from making an argument.

In a sermon, you're told things that you're expected to accept at least partly on the basis of some presumed authority, such as the authority of the preacher, the authority of the 'scripture' he is citing, or the authority that accumulates because of some traditional or other. You should be nice to your neighbour because Jesus said so in the bible, and his followers said so too, and so on down the line to your local pastor who is preaching the sermon.

An argument, on the other hand, would use reason and logical to try to convince you to be nice to your neighbour. You would be given reasons other than that somebody (God, Jesus, etc.) supposedly said this is how you ought to behave.

Similarly, in conveying information, a sermon expects you just to take in the scripture or other authority-based proclamation as (in some cases literal) gospel truth. An argument, on the other hand, challenges you to think and to try to pick holes in the reasoning. If you can't find any, then perhaps you'll accept it as the truth.

One of the themes of the so-called New Atheism is to stop deferring to religious authorities - to dispense with the automatic assumption that authority-based statements ought to gain automatic respect, due to their supposed divine origin or their long history in a religious tradition. So, the New Atheists speak out against what they see as the failings of religions. The reaction of the religious is often outrage: how dare somebody openly question the basics of my belief system? That's just plain, old-fashioned rudeness. After all, nobody in my church/mosque/synagogue/temple ever asks such blatant questions.

Of course, it has always been acceptable for the religious to disparage (even persecute) the unbelievers. Telling atheists that they are all going to Hell and that they are immoral and only out to deceive the righteous is just fine. It's traditional.

 

[Robittybob1]

.....

One of the themes of the so-called New Atheism is to stop deferring to religious authorities - to dispense with the automatic assumption that authority-based statements ought to gain automatic respect, due to their supposed divine origin or their long history in a religious tradition. So, the New Atheists speak out against what they see as the failings of religions. The reaction of the religious is often outrage: how dare somebody openly question the basics of my belief system? That's just plain, old-fashioned rudeness. After all, nobody in my church/mosque/synagogue/temple ever asks such blatant questions.

Of course, it has always been acceptable for the religious to disparage (even persecute) the unbelievers. Telling atheists that they are all going to Hell and that they are immoral and only out to deceive the righteous is just fine. It's traditional.

What would happen if preaching by atheist, New Atheists and Christians and others was allowed. Just no insults, or defamations, nothing personal.
Maybe that would be the most interesting way, for we wouldn't have this "no preaching" bar hanging over us that we aren't too sure whether we are going to bang our heads on.

 

[wynn]

There aren't many religious people who partake in these discussions.

And hopefully, this is because they have better things to do than to post at silly online forums, which amounts to acting against the principles of their religion!

The religious keep a low profile because their view aren't welcome here, unless they are passive, and/or trying to bring their religiosity up to a standard that the atheist will let slip (such as theistic evolution), or just mildly kick them around for a laugh.

Nonsense. If you really have God on your side, then you have no grounds to complain the way you do.

In the real world of applied religion, trial by combat and trial by ordeal are taking place all the time.

 

[Robittybob1]

And hopefully, this is because they have better things to do than to post at silly online forums, which amounts to acting against the principles of their religion!

Nonsense. If you really have God on your side, then you have no grounds to complain the way you do.

In the real world of applied religion, trial by combat and trial by ordeal are taking place all the time.

Was there the sense that the victorious person was the just one?

 

[wynn]

Was there the sense that the victorious person was the just one?

Of course. The idea was that God is on the side of the innocent one.

 

[Robittybob1]

Of course. The idea was that God is on the side of the innocent one.

Well that is alright then. I will keep appealing to Justice for my vengence.

 

[river]

Well that is alright then. I will keep appealing to Justice for my vengence.

so you are a vengeful person then ?

 

[Robittybob1]

so you are a vengeful person then ?

No I will accept whatever recompense Justice will deliver me. Maybe I will argue for a harsher punishment at times, for Justice around here is slow and mild at best. There are only a handful of registered members active so no one can really have a clean-out.