Loving People

[Darth Ruinus]

Do you like the approach? Come on, your just being dense.

something I'm clearly not interested in

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

For a person who requires his beliefs to actually conform to objective reality, no. To persuade the latter sort of person, you will require reason and evidence (and quoting Paul in Romans is not "evidence").

Why not look at the ground work of Christianity before you judge whether its based on reality or not? I don't

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Please, just one specific, well reasoned response that addresses the issue. Remember, though we may know as much about the bible as you do, don't assume we share the same worldview. If your goal is to make us accept yours; you can't start by assuming we take the same things for granted that you do. Your last sentence didn't even make sense. What do you mean by "ground work of Christianity?"

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Please, just one specific, well reasoned response that addresses the issue. Remember, though we may know as much about the bible as you do, don't assume we share the same worldview. If your goal is to make us accept yours; you can't start by assuming we take the same things for granted that you do.

Its clear since I haven't been answered that hypocrisy is typical here. I'm not asking for you to accept my worldview. You know what, if you just started out the thread by saying that you don't approve of my religion's methods of conversion because you don't approve of my religion, I would have gotten an actual honest response.

[Darth Ruinus]

Its clear since I haven't been answered.

No.

I'm clearly not interested

You got two answers. You can pretty much guess everyone elses answers too.

[Lagmonster]

I tried to tell you before; for any system of conversion to work, you have to agree on some basic ground rules about what constitutes reality. The other deists and so forth on this board agree with you about supernatural gods - the rest (who is god, etc.) is details and you can spend as much time as you wish converting each other to and from various beliefs.

But taking someone who demands empirical methods for determining reality to someone who accepts things like the existence of souls and gods on faith takes more than just a new and subtle method of proselytization. In my experience, that feat requires an extreme fear of mortality, senility, or guilt from a lingering childhood indoctrination. Frankly, that speech probably seems sensible to you only because you're already at least one step ahead in that you're willing to entertain the possibility of *some* supernatural entity somewhere, and the rest is just good salesmanship.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Vulgar... This IS the universal set of ethics everyone will be judged whether they agree with them or not. Now on to the OP.

Doesn't this man advocate the right approach of attracting their faith to you or not? Which is the actual question of the OP.

Yes, I'm vulgar. Don't like it? Leave.

And I repeat; there is no universal set of ethics. Just because you happen to believe that everyone will be "judged whether they agree with them or not" without any scientific evidence does not mean that they will.

Not only that, but do not steal, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's anything, do not bear false witness, are half of the set of Commandments that God set forth to obey and a whole lot of cultures agree with that.

Unless your complaining about the Sabbath laws, whats really so foreign in the Ten Commandments, really? Did you know that in the Old Testament the Gentiles had a Covenant with God too? Did you know that it wasn't actually until a few centuries that the world was isolated from God's laws to begin with?

Those kinds of principles had a lot of cultures in agreement before the Ten Commandments too, moron. Check out Hammurabi's Code. Also known as the first-EVER written code of law.

And I believe what others here find foreign about the Commandments is the whole "religion" part of it--many here are atheists. Most people here aren't so much into the "No other God before me" or "Making False Idols" or saying "Goddammit."


You know what the best part of this is? I'm a Christian too. I just hate morons who try to proselytize and convert people and act like sheer assholes in the process. I also hate people who are uneducated.

[SirNitram]

There is no universal set of ethics, diptard.

Vulgar... This IS the universal set of ethics everyone will be judged whether they agree with them or not. Now on to the OP.

Doesn't this man advocate the right approach of attracting their faith to you or not? Which is the actual question of the OP.

Translation: I will not, even for an instant, entertain the notion I might be incorrect in any way.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

There is no universal set of ethics, diptard.

Vulgar... This IS the universal set of ethics everyone will be judged whether they agree with them or not. Now on to the OP.

Doesn't this man advocate the right approach of attracting their faith to you or not? Which is the actual question of the OP.

Translation: I will not, even for an instant, entertain the notion I might be incorrect in any way.

Man, Nit, I feel bad for typing out all that stuff I posted now. You make it look so easy!

[Lagmonster]

Its clear since I haven't been answered that hypocrisy is typical here. I'm not asking for you to accept my worldview. You know what, if you just started out the thread by saying that you don't approve of my religion's methods of conversion because you don't approve of my religion, I would have gotten an actual honest response.

Derision of your beliefs is an answer. Let's say you absolutely did not accept the idea that people turned into watermelon smoothies after they turn seventy-five. You'd list that as an absurdity and, should anyone approach you even with the strongest of convictions and the most earnest of intentions, you'd chortle at their beliefs in your head at least and to their face at most.

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Vulgar... This IS the universal set of ethics everyone will be judged whether they agree with them or not. Now on to the OP.

Doesn't this man advocate the right approach of attracting their faith to you or not? Which is the actual question of the OP.

Yes, I'm vulgar. Don't like it? Leave.

And I repeat; there is no universal set of ethics. Just because you happen to believe that everyone will be "judged whether they agree with them or not" without any scientific evidence does not mean that they will.

Not only that, but do not steal, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not covet thy neighbor's anything, do not bear false witness, are half of the set of Commandments that God set forth to obey and a whole lot of cultures agree with that.

Unless your complaining about the Sabbath laws, whats really so foreign in the Ten Commandments, really? Did you know that in the Old Testament the Gentiles had a Covenant with God too? Did you know that it wasn't actually until a few centuries that the world was isolated from God's laws to begin with?

Those kinds of principles had a lot of cultures in agreement before the Ten Commandments too, moron. Check out Hammurabi's Code. Also known as the first-EVER written code of law.

And I believe what others here find foreign about the Commandments is the whole "religion" part of it--many here are atheists. Most people here aren't so much into the "No other God before me" or "Making False Idols" or saying "Goddammit."


You know what the best part of this is? I'm a Christian too. I just hate morons who try to proselytize and convert people and act like sheer assholes in the process. I also hate people who are uneducated.

Nice bandwagon

[Surlethe]

For a person who requires his beliefs to actually conform to objective reality, no. To persuade the latter sort of person, you will require reason and evidence (and quoting Paul in Romans is not "evidence").

Why not look at the ground work of Christianity before you judge whether its based on reality or not? I don't

Well, that's the point, isn't it? If you want to convert a person who gets at reality through empiricism*, you need to lay out the groundwork of Christianity and establish why it's true. That will lead to a judgment on whether it is based in reality.


*Really, everyone does, which opens up Christianity to charges of hypocrisy, but that's neither here nor there.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.lightsource.com/Ministry/spi ... /20081012/

Loving people into God's Kingdom.... Do non-Christians find this interesting?

It's the most boring thing I've seen since C-SPAN. How can anyone, including a Christian, find this interesting? The speaker has all the charisma of wet dog hair. His monotone delivery is about as interesting as watching paint dry. How can anyone watch this and think that it would make anyone feel better about anything?

This video is an excellent example of everything that's wrong with the way Christians preach, particularly white conservative Christians. I can't believe how mind-numbingly boring it is. At least black baptist churches are full of energy and celebration.

[Karmic Knight]

Nice bandwagon

How is he jumping on a bandwagon if he was a responding to a post made by you in response to him?

[Darth Wong]

Nice bandwagon

How is he jumping on a bandwagon if he was a responding to a post made by you in response to him?

I wonder if this person even recognizes the incredibly irony of any Christian accusing anyone else of jumping onto a bandwagon, when organized religions like hers are the epitome of bandwagons: people literally jump onto them because they see others on them.

[Darth Ruinus]

Nice bandwagon

He just pointed out that many people on this board are atheists and that he is a Christian and you say "nice bandwagon"? How does that even work? Nevermind that you completely blew off his other points.

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Nice knowing you Wharf Dong.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I see now that the entire 4 pages was just leading up to that insult.

[Darth Wong]

Nice knowing you Wharf Dong.

Oooh, you know how to insult someone grade-school playground style!

As if making fun of someone's name will somehow exonerate you from the charge of worshipping an entity who, by his own claim, is an unrepentant baby-killing mass-murderer who somehow manages the astoundingly hypocritical feat of simultaneously claiming to be a god of Love, and castigating those who don't live up to some lofty standard of morality. And one must wonder what kind of imbecile thinks he or she can lecture anyone about anything when starting from that foundation, particularly when you can't back up an actual argument to save your life.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Nice bandwagon

You useless bitch.

And if bandwagoning is replying to your post, then I guess you'll consider this part of the same bandwagon.

At least I'm aboard the right wagon, you cock-juggling thundercunt.

[Twoyboy]

For a person who requires his beliefs to actually conform to objective reality, no. To persuade the latter sort of person, you will require reason and evidence (and quoting Paul in Romans is not "evidence").

Why not look at the ground work of Christianity before you judge whether its based on reality or not? I don't

You continue to talk about Christianity under a single all-encompassing framework, despite the fact that you have rejected the OT as "obsolete". You do realise there are many who would say the OT, as with the rest of the Bible, is as relevant and true today as it has always been. And those who say that the entire thing is allegory and is meant as a spiritual frame work of sorts.

When you can say why your model of Christianity is better than that of anyone else, you can begin trying to convert me.

Actually, there is no True Scottsman fallacy.

The criteria for a Christian is laid down in the Bible. It does not say that Christians are Church members. It says Christians are obedient servants of God.

You do realise this definition at the very least includes Jews and Muslims as Christians, don't you? They are obedient servants of the same God. The defining trait of a Christian is belief that salvation is obtained through Jesus.

[Darth Wong]

You know what's funny? This person started this thread by saying that Christians should show love in order to get others to join the faith, ie- set a good example. Now look at this person's actual conduct in this thread

Snippy, insulting, high-handed, ignores points, the whole nine yards.

[Samuel]

Love only applies if you obey unquestioningly. It is emotional blackmail.

[SirNitram]

Love only applies if you obey unquestioningly. It is emotional blackmail.

Put it like that, God sounds like a 'therapist' trained by Dr. Lovaas to treat Homosexuality.(There, that's the less incindiary way to point he's an evil peice of shit.) Your existance hurts. Therefore, we will beat, electrocute, restrain, and isolate you until you stop being you. Without your existance, there will not be pain, and everyone will be so happy..

[Ghost Rider]

Nice knowing you Wharf Dong.

Aside from what others have said, you do understand how to apply some form of insult logic, correct?

I mean when someone calls you an illiterate ignorant cum guzzling donkey whore, there's a sense of logic behind this. It's refering to likely a few things and then adds upon the whole slew of thoughts on your sexual preferences.

Wharf: Now this has several meanings, the most common is a dock or pier. There are a couple old meanings such as river bank or shore, but have similar connotation to the first. And I doubt you are refering to the verb meanings. So we will go with dock.

Dong: A deep noise made by a bell, but I am assuming with your try at a verbal jab, you are meaning penis.

So you are saying either

Dock Penis

Pier Penis

Dock Deep Bell Noise

Or perhaps it was a play at Darth Wong's name? If so, this is yet another failure given they are many ways of doing such without resorting to this hideous try. Again, try harder because you're a chew toy of very low quality at this point.