How can I stop your nutty brethren from bothering me in the street yapping on about God the mother, and God the father, and a million other inanities. What is wrong with you people? What compels you to impose your wacky beliefs on other people?
When will you just die and leave us in peace, on heaven on Earth?
Jayson: Religion Forum Rule 3 Violation:
Warning issued.
What part of town are you walking in?
Should it matter?
Yes, you might want to walk on the side of town where the atheists are. Then you will feel right at home.
I’m only an athetist when a nutty theist compels me to label myself.
How’s about you spread the good word and teach them some manners?
Anyway, RE:OP, why do religionists do this? And what’s more, why is it mostly/always christians doing it?
Because spreading the gospel is an important part of Christian faith.
But so we’re clear: I’m not condoning the “gospel” being spread by those who are annoying you, because it’s most likely they’re talking foolishness. But if the words being spoken to you on the street were truly words of wisdom and life, as they should be if Christian, or if they are the kind of words that Christians should be spreading, then I’m sure you’d have no problem, and this issue would have never arisen.
A real wise man wouldn’t need to label himself nor resort to one specific holy book though. But yes, all I get from these fools is gibberish about the human soul and how we must study the bible, and if we don’t understand or if we disagree, then we must study the bible more. Twats.
Jayson: This also violates Rule 3, but since it happened before I served the previous warning I’m not issuing a double warning. Please do take time to read over the rules though.
I may be one of those “twats”. Not when it comes to the “labelling” bit or the “one specific book” part of what you say, but the need to study the bible, and to come to agreement with it.
That’s important. Not because it’s the only source of wisdom and life but because it is a source. A brilliant one. As an artwork the bible outstrips so much of what goes for art. We would be fools to ignore it.
Why is there a need to come to an agreement with it? Come to your own agreements. If they happen to be in the bible too then so be it, but to force oneself to come into agreement with it just sounds oppresive.
On what goes for art we’ll have to agree to disagree there, as far as I’m concerned religionists and philosophers are too cerebral for art.
Anyway, so you believe the bible is art, and you live your life accordingly. Sounds good so far. Then I expect you to be the embodiment of that belief, art is beauty, and if you’re living accordingly you too should be beautiful, in your character and style at least…if you are then you’re okay, but I’ve never met a religionist who embodies the splendid or the beautiful…they’re always too…looney or plain old boring. Not very impressive at all.
Because if you were the embodiment of this art, by definition, you’d be impressive. Regardless of my own ideas regarding art and beauty.
But this is another thread…this is my other thread actually…
RE: Warnings.
It’s funny how in 300+ points spoken in the same tone as I have here I receive no warning but when it comes to religion my wrists are slapped.
Fuck this Religion forum. I’ll leave you guys to it.
Each forum has its own set of sub-rules.
Religion states on the front description of the forum:
Weak excuse. Everything is a personal matter and should be expressed with everything one has, be it venom or tlc.
Why not just say that you’re nursing a pathetic little deformity in your breast and you need protection.
The answer from both perspectives is the same;
Whether Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Secularist, Humanist, Scientist…
They don’t like Your behavior if You believe different from Them.
Although with Judaism, such a rule only applies to themselves as they don’t want gentiles to believe what they believe, else they lose ownership.
If you don’t like the rules, then don’t post in Religion.
No one is forcing you to.
Trevor’s post is self-refuting…it amounts to the following statement:
“There should be a law against making laws!”
To condemn those who condemn is equally contradictory.
Notice, Trevor assertively proposes (in a public forum) many moral opinions; an enterprise he’s undertaken in feigned outrage against those who stand in public forums, assertively proposing moral opinions.
…sigh…
No. He was understandably venting from real life interactions. It just happens that the method he chose to do so is not within the rules framework.
Now, lets not start flinging comments around about who has the superior standing justification for action in a thread that already recieved moderation accordingly.
The discussion is free to continue within bounds.
Of which would be regarding the degree by which is permitted, or should be, for evangelism when unwanted.
Is there a point beneath the frustration to what is being conveyed?
Is there a degree of evangelism that goes too far?
I’m pointing out that it is logically inconsistent for someone to be an “evangelist against evangelism.”
If Trevor wishes to present his position (IE: moral opinions) in public, then on what basis can he deny others the same right?
Or, is there some objective moral standard that excludes Christian evangelists from asserting their particular moral standard in public?
Trevor’s statements (and his position that followed them in this particular thread) amount to one big logical contradiction, as I pointed out.
It’s akin to someone wanting to make a law that bans all laws.
So it’s wrong for someone to lose it and vent their frustration about something they may deal with regularly by posting the proposition of the issue on an internet forum?
Meaning, disregard the messenger for a moment; he was obviously frustrated.
Now, how about the core point?
Is there a point where evangelism goes too far?
Trevor’s evangelism, Christian evangelism, or evangelism in general?
Someone can vent when they’re frustrated, heck…I do it all the time.
That doesn’t make their argument any more or less logical or self-contradictory.
I wasn’t concerned with personal dispositions, but rather with highlighting the logical error.
To speak directly to your concern, however, Jason:
We Christians know that all unblelievers, (even those who feign civility) are seething inside against their Lord. (The wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.) So, we know that the Gospel message is going to cause some sort of negative reaction when heard.
I’m not sure why we should apologize for that…especially since criticism of evangelism in the name of “tolerance” or “civility” presupposes a different moral standard of some sort, which is, itself, arbitrarily applied to the situation.
In other words, why should the Christian give up his Christianity in light of a non-Christian position?
Now, maybe he (the Christian) should, but if so, then Trevor should argue for that instead of “venting” self-contradictory positions.
Christians are constrained to the ‘turn the other cheek’ association. Though I have witnessed both sides of the coin during exchanges where the subject of God comes up. Plus I recall Jesus getting upset with the money changers in the temple.
If people who do not wish to hear about any religious affectation should just be able to ask the other party to kindly cease their actions. God admonishes people of the Christian faith spread the Gospel. Witnessing for God should not be displeasure for others to hear. If God’s Word is not desired to be heard, then that agent should excuse themselves and leave. That is not to say that Christians won’t receive negative feedback from disgruntled listeners. It should be something to expected from time to time.