Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Evangelical christians deliberately lying?
-
12-06-2008 12:15pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This stuff is obviously lies, and I think it is the responsibility of the Christians to sort this out. If they really want to spread their gospel "to the nations" - this kind of nonsense doesn't help achieve that goal, and it would be foolish to ignore this fact.
And how would you propose they do that? Evangelicalism comprises millions of different people from different cultures and had no central organisation and hierarchy. There is obviously no way to excommunicate someone so they are not an evangelical anymore, and small groups of extremists (Fred Phelps etc) rarely listen to what anyone else thinks. Short of assassinating the people who created the website in question it is difficult to see how Christians can "sort this out".
However ....... Let's turn the tables.
The actions of the Chinese and North Korean governments in arresting Christians in the name of atheism is obviously repression and, if he is consistent in his thinking, iUseVi will think it is the responsibility of the atheists to sort this out. If they really want to convince us that atheism is rational then they will see that this kind of brutality doesn't help achieve that goal, and it would be foolish to ignore this fact.
Any similar examples of warped logic are welcome.0 -
-
And how would you propose they do that? Evangelicalism comprises millions of different people from different cultures and had no central organisation and hierarchy. There is obviously no way to excommunicate someone so they are not an evangelical anymore, and small groups of extremists (Fred Phelps etc) rarely listen to what anyone else thinks. Short of assassinating the people who created the website in question it is difficult to see how Christians can "sort this out".
I propose they do something similar to what the creationists are currently doing. They have a highly organised campaign that takes various forms from websites to tracts. But of course you are in position to put out the message the same way all other messages are put out. During church services, from the pulpit. Wouldn't really be that hard, you could bring it up in the agenda at your next "leader's" meeting. But of course you won't.However ....... Let's turn the tables.
The actions of the Chinese and North Korean governments in arresting Christians in the name of atheism is obviously repression and, if he is consistent in his thinking, iUseVi will think it is the responsibility of the atheists to sort this out. If they really want to convince us that atheism is rational then they will see that this kind of brutality doesn't help achieve that goal, and it would be foolish to ignore this fact.
You always make me laugh PDN, I'll give you that. Nothing is done in "the name of atheism." You always love to cite these "officially atheist countries", but of course they don't exist. What you should say is that China, for example, has officially endorsed atheism, and that it is mainly atheist in the Western sense of the word. (I.e. they don't believe in the Judaic God) Most Chinese people hold to some sort of folk religion, which is loosely polytheistic.
I won't deny that Christian persecution exists in China, but any link to atheism on your part is patent rubbish. Nothing can be done in the name of atheism any more than something can be done in the name of invisible pink unicorn disbelief-ism. Just because the government supports atheism doesn't mean that's the reason they persecute Christians.
If you are going to argue for a link you going to have to come up with some proof. France is a highly irreligious country, there are many atheist and humanist organisations. When was the last time you heard of persecution from this country?
Of course if the Chinese government endorsed anti-theism, you might have an argument. But atheism is not the same as anti-theism. You insult all atheists with your implication that these are the same.Any similar examples of warped logic are welcome.
You referring to your own posting? Yes, please more posts that can be easily picked apart as being nonsense.
0 -
-
You don't have a clue what I do in leaders' meetings. Actually my last leaders' meeting, and my last message from the pulpit, concentrated on warning people away from some activities in Florida that are being done in the name of Christ.
Certainly I certainly don't think it is the job of churches to spend their time refuting every little group that calls itself evangelical and acts badly. To do that would distract us from our main task and would give unwarranted attention and publicity to every group of crackpots.
You are right, I have no idea what you talk about and I have no desire to know. When I say that stomping on science doesn't help the evangelical churches' image, you can of course just choose to ignore me. Doesn't bother me if evangelicals want to live in the middle ages.
I never said you should refute every little group. You do after all have a group of churches under the umbrella of evangelism. I was at one of these churches that subscribes to being evangelical last Sunday, and the preacher was condemning evolution. (Don't ask why I was at a church, let's just say research)The persecutors expressly state that they are doing it in the name of atheism. I have visited friends in China and seen the scars left by their torture. Many of them testify that their tormentors kept saying, "You know there is no God. You were taught at school that there is no God. Just sign a statement renouncing your faith and declaring that God does not exist and you will be released."
Are you going to accuse these people of lying as well? Why not add insult to the injury they have already received in the name of atheism?
These people are ANTI-theists. They are obviously against religion. I thought I made it clear that not all atheists are anti-theist. Yeah sure, they don't believe in God, that's atheism. But they also persecute Christians, that's anti-theism.What has France got to do with anything? I am not saying that all atheists persecute people, nor that atheists in general persecute people. All I needed to do was point out one example of atheist's persecuting.
What has China and North Korea got to do with an evangelical website? Beats me.
Why? Because the OP was not saying all evangelicals tell lies, or even that evangelicals in general tend to tell lies. He was only pointing out one instance of evangelicals lying. Therefore your bringing France into this discussion is like me picking out one particular evangelical organisation and challenging you to prove how they tell lies.
to do was point out one example of atheist's persecuting.
Ditto from above. Me bringing France into this is no different from you being in China and North Korea. To illustrate a point.I insult all atheists by pointing out the wrong actions of one particular group of atheists. You have some kind of solidarity agreement? :rolleyes:
You said violence against Christians was done by atheists. Yes it was, but the atheists were also ANTI-theist. In falling to mention this, you knowingly imply that they did it because they were atheist.
If I said a particular group of Christians were homophobic just because they were Christian, would that insult all Christians? Pretty much yeah.0 -
You are right, I have no idea what you talk about and I have no desire to know. When I say that stomping on science doesn't help the evangelical churches' image, you can of course just choose to ignore me. Doesn't bother me if evangelicals want to live in the middle ages.
I never said you should refute every little group. You do after all have a group of churches under the umbrella of evangelism. I was at one of these churches that subscribes to being evangelical last Sunday, and the preacher was condemning evolution. (Don't ask why I was at a church, let's just say research)
And, if that preacher is convinced of a particular interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis then he is perfectly entitled to condemn evolution. I am not convinced that his interpretation is correct, but I defend his right to believe it and teach it. BTW, disagreeing with one theory hardly equates to "stomping on science", even if he is wrong.
But you seem to be wanting to switch the subject. The OP was not asking should evangelicals support evolution, but rather should they tell lies? If the preacher you heard was expressing an honestly held opinion (albait one that may be mistaken) then that hardly falls under the topic.
I've highlighted the only important words in the above quote. They are atheists. Now, they might not be your variety of atheist - but they are still atheists. The folks who put together the website we are discussing may not be my variety of evangelical - but they are still evangelical. Stop dancing round the issue.These people are ANTI-theists. They are obviously against religion. I thought I made it clear that not all atheists are anti-theist. Yeah sure, they don't believe in God, that's atheism. But they also persecute Christians, that's anti-theism.
Now you're being intellectually dishonest. Nobody said that China or Korea have anything to do with that website - but they are relevant to our discussion of your comments that try to make evangelicals in general responsible for fixing any crackpot who calls themselves evangelical.What has China and North Korea got to do with an evangelical website? Beats me.
Unfortunately it didn't actually illustrate any point you had made. Maybe you should try making the point first and then adding the illustration afterwards.Ditto from above. Me bringing France into this is no different from you being in China and North Korea. To illustrate a point.You said violence against Christians was done by atheists. Yes it was, but the atheists were also ANTI-theist. In falling to mention this, you knowingly imply that they did it because they were atheist.
I implied no such thing. I referred to these antitheists (who were also atheists) to show the folly of making an entire group responsible for the actions of a subset within that group.
That would be a valid point if I had said that the Chinese persecuted the Christians just because they were atheists. However, since I said no such thing your point is irrelevant and invalid.If I said a particular group of Christians were homophobic just because they were Christian, would that insult all Christians? Pretty much yeah.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
And how would you propose they do that? Evangelicalism comprises millions of different people from different cultures and had no central organisation and hierarchy. There is obviously no way to excommunicate someone so they are not an evangelical anymore, and small groups of extremists (Fred Phelps etc) rarely listen to what anyone else thinks. Short of assassinating the people who created the website in question it is difficult to see how Christians can "sort this out".
However ....... Let's turn the tables.
The actions of the Chinese and North Korean governments in arresting Christians in the name of atheism is obviously repression and, if he is consistent in his thinking, iUseVi will think it is the responsibility of the atheists to sort this out. If they really want to convince us that atheism is rational then they will see that this kind of brutality doesn't help achieve that goal, and it would be foolish to ignore this fact.
Any similar examples of warped logic are welcome.
Atheists are connected only by their shared lack of faith. We don't comprise a distinct community nor any kind of organised social hierarchy. Atheism is not comparable to Christianity. I share no identity with Chinese atheists.
I think that you are correct in saying that to assert that Christians have some responsibility for propaganda perpetuated by their own is unreasonable. I also think you're being a little unfair towards atheists.0 -
-
-
-
-
Because when people say they are doing something in the name of Christianity (as when they say they are doing something for the good of the country) they are often using that as cloak for other, more selfish, motives. It's basic human nature. Christianity may indeed play some role, in with a mix of other motives, but it would IMHO be naive to accept at face value that is the primary motivation.
It would be nice if we could take such statements at face value - then we would all believe that George Bush invaded Iraq in the name of democracy.
No, I'm saying it is the stated reason for their actions. Your conclusion would only hold true if everybody was universally truthful (yes, I know, I'm a dreadful old cynic).
OK, well at least you now understand what I am saying. You are of course once again right about people having false motives and lying about their true motives. I'm not denying the duplicity of people.
But really, you can invalidate almost any argument by saying "Well someone said this, but we don't know if they were telling the truth." I could just as easily pull the same trick out of the bag and use it against the testimony of the Christians who reported this persecution.If you can't take it then don't try to dish it out.
However, if you don't want to debate with me then nobody is forcing you to post here.
I realise that, I did try to stop once, but I kept coming back.
It doesn't matter whether you were referring to Christians in general or to Evangelicals in particular. The point was that you argued that a larger group with no central structure or hierarchy (evangelicals) are responsible for sorting out the behaviour of a much smaller subsection within that group (creationists, or, more specifically, creationists who tell lies). I responded that, by the same logic, a larger group with no central structure or hierarchy (atheists) would be responsible for sorting out the behaviour of a much smaller subsection within that group (antitheists, or, more specifically, antitheists who torture Christians). If we cut out the subsequent sarcasm and jibes (from both of us) you have completely failed to address this central point.
Evangelicals have no central structure or hierarchy? Seriously? :eek:
You may have been able to have got away with that with other posters who don't know much about evangelicals, but that ain't gonna fly with me.
The church is full of hierarchies. You have deacons and elders or whatever you call them, then you have leaders, pastors, etc., who meet together on occasion.
Some of these churches subscribe to a larger group church. (The Church of God or the Assemblies of God, etc.)
Then of course there is the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland (EAI). Now if that isn't a central structure I don't know what is.
Now as far as atheism is concerned we have only one thing in common. No god. That is it, nothing else whatsoever. You have mountains of dogma and creed.Yes, I'm such a humourless individual aren't I? :rolleyes:
I am old-fashioned enough to believe that good spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. are all beneficial in putting across a point of view in a debate. If I wanted to make fun of people's misuse and misunderstanding of the English language then I would do so on an hourly basis, given that boards.ie posters reflect the lamentable levels of literacy that the Irish educational system manages to churn out in its end products. Also, none of us are immune to fat finger syndrome afflicting our keyboards, particularly since the Qwerty keyboard was supposedly designed to make typing slower and more difficult.
I agree that good grammar is important.There are only two types of posts that prompt me to poke fun at someone's poor mastery of the English language.
a) When a poster attacks others as being stupid, yet can't even master the basic rudiments of their native tongue. These are the posts that say stuff like, "Christianity is a mindless relijon for irrashnul and uneducated peeple."
b) When a poster fails to read a post properly and then aggressively accuses someone of talking nonsense on the basis of their own failure to comprehend a straightforward sentence.
You see it as an appropriate response for the aggression of the other poster. But it shouldn't really be necessary if you can argue the points that the poster is making. I was using it as a joke. You use it as revenge when posters get aggressive.If you wanted to reverse this onto me then such a tactic would require you to demonstrate competency of the language yourself. Are you saying that your 'obvious joke' was to use the word 'mediocre' instead of 'minimum' or 'modicum of' and therefore deliberately rob your barbed comment of any effect? That sounds to me like one of George Hook's 'deliberate mistakes'.
I don't know what you are talking about. I used the word mediocre perfectly. It is an adjective. I used it as such?
It comes from the Latin mediocris and means "poor to middling in quality." 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
OK then, so over 200 years ago. Wow.
Ironic considering that your signature line seeks to make capital out of something that the Catholic Church did nearly 400 years ago.
Those who attack Christianity on this board are quite happy to wax lyrical about events that occurred a millennium ago, so FC is surely justified in casting his mind back to the 1700s.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Ah, so let's be clear. Are you implying that my Chinese friends are telling lies, or that I am? Or are you prepared to let the smear of false motives hang over them and myself?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I trust you and your friends more than I trust people who torture other people. But my point still stands.Because your point about the inherent structure within the church is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what structure is within the church when it comes to 'sorting out' those who lie totally outside that structure.
But I've said several times now, I'm talking about Evangelical Christians in Ireland. Are you saying you and other leaders would have no influence amongst other Evangelicals? And I don't expect you to have any influence over the owners of the original website.As for my having no interest in advertising such talks, I wonder, then, why I started a thread to promote just such a talk: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055191949
OK, I take back what I said. I was too presumptuous.
But then if you are organising such things, why do you disagree so strongly when I say that it is Christians who have to solve their own problems? Surely you would actually agree with me on that? All I really meant was that obviously it's not up to Muslims or atheists.Fair enough, I've tried to point out to you what your words mean, but you're free to think they mean something else if that makes you happy.
You are the one who put your own interpretation on my words. But please, can we drop semantic talks, I'm sure we are both equally tired of them by now.0
Advertisement