Can I talk to you about Jesus?

[Iggy]

I think there are quite a few people on here who do actually learn something from all the opinions and stances people take, (but maybe too shy to admit it).

I have not been on this forum long, but I am happy to see some good healthy debates backed up by erudite types as well bloody minded stubbornness.

So (to get back on topic)..... now there is a warm cosy feeling of agreement :love2: perhaps I should let them talk to me about Jesus after all.

 

[hawai_74]

i close the door in their faces, but if i am in an extremely good mood, i talk a few second at the doorstep.

 

[Homie]

Originally posted by betazed


I know that came out arrogant (and even a little stupid). But what was I to say? per my simple request that people get to know something first before they discuss about it I am being called a "typical prejudiced intellectual" who should get off his high horse. Huh?

Why is it hip and cool to not know about things and talk about it and so unhip and uncool to read a few books first?

Come on! You know that wasn't what my argument was about.
Do I have to lay it all out to you? Very well.

Homie
E.g. I have friends saying that evolution is PROVEN because of some bones they found in the dirt

This was just an example used to aid in understanding my argument that some people consider X to be proof while others don't consider X to be proof, therefore proof (a common buzz word used in debates) is not absolute truth. Evolution was not what was being discussed and I definately didn't want to drag us into that debate, so I kept it short not going into details.

Then you say,

betazed
I have a general request. Could you please read up on things like evolution, physics, biochemistry, economics, terrorism etc. before you comment on these things? Just read one book please.

clearly insisting that I am a unread, braindead, slack-jawaed jockel. Anyone can see that your comment insults my intelligence, even hillbilly me.

I saw you for what you were and called it. BTW, calling you an intellectual is not a compliment, calling you intelligent is.

 

[betazed]

clearly insisting that I am a unread, braindead, slack-jawaed jockel. Anyone can see that your comment insults my intelligence, even hillbilly me.

I saw you for what you were and called it. BTW, calling you an intellectual is not a compliment, calling you intelligent is.

I rest my case.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Zardnaar
I usually invite them in. They try really hard but haven't converted me yet. Say what you like about their beliefs but most JW's or Mormons are very honest.

Well, a lot of people responded to what I said, and oddly enough, not one of them managed to surprise me, until I read this.

Zardnaar, since you actually listened to some Witnesses, would you be so kind as to inform these good people about the validity of their claims that JWs use 'fear tactics' about 'eternal damnation' to gain converts?

Well, in case you don't remember, I'll enlighten the board. JWs follow the Bible as their guide to Christ, and in reading it, have learned the following:

Heaven is where God, Jesus, and the angels (including Satan and his demons at one time) live.

People do not go to Heaven when they die, nor do they go to a place of fiery torment, nor are they forced to wander alone in some desolate place. A tiny handful of exceptions to this were made, in that Jesus has set side room for 12 twelves of myriads of people, 12,000 out of each 'tribe' of spiritual Israel, to dwell with him in heaven as kings and priests.

Good people will be resurrected to eternal life on an Eden-like earth after the great battle at the end of this system of things, and likewise bad people will be resurrected to judgement. Some of them may go on to join the good people, but the rest will be cast into the lake of fire with Satan and his demons and destroyed for all time (not eternally tormented, just totally eradicated from existence).

All who would call themselves Christians are duty-bound to spread the Word of God and of Christ's return to all the inhabited earth. All. Every Christian is a minister of God, from those who just learned to speak to those who are in danger of forgetting how.

In real Christianity, as written in the Bible, there is no stick. Only a carrot that you won't get if you don't behave. Anyone who tells you otherwise IS selling something. Noone, NOONE, ever got rich by being a Christian and doing God's work. If you meet someone who claims otherwise, they're NOT a Christian. Christians do not store up their treasures on earth, they deposit their faith AND WORKS in the First Bank of Jehovah.

Consider this my post to the 'what is a Christian' thread also...

The fact that most of you not only did not back off of your rotten attitudes about JWs, but then began spouting vitupertive rubbish from various cults and sects of false Christianity and passing it off as coming out of a JWs mouth only proves that you prefer to wallow in willful ignorance rather than listen to an opposing viewpoint. If any of you had listened to them, you wouldn't be so ignorant of JW beliefs. Since you are ignorant, and this thread is all about you patting each other on the back in celebration of that ignorance, don't expect me to post here again.

I'll see you all in the non-religious threads.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Homie
You speak much of proof and describe it as an absolute, which it is definately not. I bet if you got proof after proof after proof etc..., you would deny all the proof, refusing to believe it, trying to make some other sense out of it, and if you couldn't you'd just say I can't explain it now but the science of the future (or something else in that neighbourhood) will.

Ironically, religionists tend to move the goalposts to defend their own precious concepts.

The funny thing is, no-one ever produces any direct proof, because there is no proof in the actual world -
beyond these-called eye-witness accounts or passages from a book written by the JC fanclub.

But I guess faith is about believing the unbelievable - a cosy clause, to be sure.

Originally posted by Homie
How many eye witnessess of God's power would you need? How much archeological evidence supporting the Bible would you need? What is absolute proof? There is plenty of proof, if you will accept the proof is another case, proof is not absolute. No man is convicted of a crime beyond ANY doubt, he is convicted beyond reasonable doubt, even if he admits to the crime!

How many eye witnesses of Darwin's power as well?

'My faith versus your faith' arguments mean little to me.
I have no faith in anything - not even atheism!

And bringing your own emotion-filled angles into the mix won't ad credibility either.

Anyone could claim to be anything, 'witnessing' god is the same as 'witnessing' the easter bunny.

Really - what is the difference - when dealing with faith?

Real physical proof is what is required - and science is the study of that proof.

Originally posted by Homie
E.g. I have friends saying that evolution is PROVEN because of some bones they found in the dirt. They consider it proof, I don't. It may be used as a strong indicator of evolution but not absolute proof. I say evidence/proof is on God's side, you say it is not, but more importantly I believe logic supports a diety. In all these discussions my experience is that atheists avoid the problem of infinity: Infinty cannot be understood/explained no matter what, the only solution is that there is a whatchamacallit that is behind it all, there is just no other way. Even Einstein recognized this.

Trying to add scientific credibility to the plain fact that you belive a myth is futile.

Until something is proven it is a mere theory - god, evolution or santa.

And to say logic supports god is a typical religionist attempt to sound authoritative on the subject - no cigar though!

Religionists like to pride themselves on the faith that supersedes logic -
but now we must concede logical thought to support your (still fabricated till proven) deity?

Not so.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Margim


I think I'm finally getting to see where you are coming from Curt. Discussions of the reality of heaven, hell and God aside, you vigorously object to the 'scare tactics' that try and pull people over to religion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that's one point on which we can agree. I pesonally find it appalling.

I rather agree on that point - and excuse me if I came across as harsh in that previous post...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Here is a quote for you Curt:

"Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

IIRC, Jesus did say that when some one was asking him for proof.

A rather good get-out clause - don't you agree?

Here's one for you:

"LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL."

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Look, "saved" is a term of inclusion, nothing more. It's a handy way of separating the in-group [Christians] from the outsiders [heathens!]. We do this kind of thing all the time. This is why we call the Chinese undemocratic, the former USSR unAmerican [well, duh!], and the third world uncivilized. To emphasize the separation.

When hurling such honorifics at whole sections of people - then you had best be ready for being held in the lowest esteem.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Only encountered it a couple of times, and on both occasions I listened for a while on the doorstep, politely accepted their pamphlets, and they were on their way. They weren't pushy, or rude, so in fact I had less of a problem with them interrupting my television watching than some apathetic salesperson calling about vaccuum services on the phone.

Still never could convert me, but that is no reason to be rude. It isn't the Canadian way.

 

[tossi]

I have never been visited by the "Zeugen Jehovas" since my house is next to the church, but my school is right next to one of their buildings. We usualy laugh about them .

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by betazed
I know that came out arrogant (and even a little stupid). But what was I to say? per my simple request that people get to know something first before they discuss about it I am being called a "typical prejudiced intellectual" who should get off his high horse. Huh?

Why is it hip and cool to not know about things and talk about it and so unhip and uncool to read a few books first?

your simple request had a rather condescending tone.

 

[Homie]

(at this whole thread and especially one friendly guy)

unsubscribing