Christians been driven out of the middle east?

bnt

What on earth does any of this have to do with atheism? It's not even a totally religious issue. There are long-established tribal factions in the Middle East that play at least as much as of a role as religion does. It's definitely not simply against Christians, despite what the OP thinks. It's about a majority with a grievance against a minority.

A good example is the situation in Syria: they have a President (Bashar al-Assad) whose ruling Alawite family belongs to a minority Ahmaddiya Shi'ia sect of Islam, while the majority of his countrymen are Sunni. The Alawite control the military and major government departments too, leaving the majority of the country feeling marginalised.

As a minority leader of a heretical sect in the eyes of the Sunnis, al-Assad knows his situation is, shall we say, precarious. If there's an "Arab Spring" revolution in Syria, he and his Alawite clan might not survive it. The violent response by him and the military he controls is therefore not surprising. The similarities with Libya and Qaddhafi are there for all to see.

In any revolutionary environment, minorities are at serious risk from the wrath of the majority. Such wrath is rarely directed accurately, and can be stoked up by people with an agenda. The Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany is an example of how otherwise "normal" Germans were roused against a Jewish minority for political reasons, and you can find similar examples in previous revolutions: French, Bolshevik, whatever. Or watch the movie Do The Right Thing for a more modern cultural take.

I can understand how the OP feels - assuming he is a Christian, and Christians are being threatened, it's tempting to see what's happening as anti-Christian, but that's missing the big picture. All minorities, ruling or otherwise, are in danger in revolutionary environments - even if they aren't all that different from the majority. Believing in the wrong variation of Islam is enough to get people killed, too.

Ellis Dee

Yahew wrote: »

yadda, yadda, yadda .... it also shows the New Atheist to be the sub-educated kuckledragger we have known him to be all along.

What is a kuckle?;) If it's what I think it is, maybe Yahoo should stop thinking with it and trying to dismiss posters who disagree with him as "sub-educated". It's soooooo zionazi to dismiss those you don't like as "sub-" something or other.:D:D:D

partyatmygaff

bnt wrote: »

There are long-established tribal factions in the Middle East that play at least as much as of a role as religion does. It's definitely not simply against Christians, despite what the OP thinks.

Let me be honest, it appears to me that you aren't too knowledgeable about Egypt. Libya and other North African countries may be tribal countries but modern Egypt can in no way be described as tribal.

Not all Middle Eastern countries are the same regardless of what misconceptions you may have.

It's about a majority with a grievance against a minority.

That much is plain... The important point out of all of this is the "grievance". This "grievance" as you like to call it is nothing more than them continuing to exist in what the bigoted majority like to call an "Islamic" country.

A good example is the situation in Syria: they have a President (Bashar al-Assad) whose ruling Alawite family belongs to a minority Ahmaddiya Shi'ia sect of Islam, while the majority of his countrymen are Sunni. The Alawite control the military and major government departments too, leaving the majority of the country feeling marginalised.

As a minority leader of a heretical sect in the eyes of the Sunnis, al-Assad knows his situation is, shall we say, precarious. If there's an "Arab Spring" revolution in Syria, he and his Alawite clan might not survive it. The violent response by him and the military he controls is therefore not surprising. The similarities with Libya and Qaddhafi are there for all to see.

Syria and Libya are tribal countries. Egypt is not a tribal country. There are no similarities whatsoever between their tribal problems and the sectarian issue in Egypt.

In any revolutionary environment, minorities are at serious risk from the wrath of the majority.

Funny... Has Egypt been in a revolutionary environment for the past few decades without me or anyone else noticing? Sectarianism of this sort has existed in Egypt for a long time. The power vacuum of sorts that now exists has widened the door for extremism to rear its ugly head.

Such wrath is rarely directed accurately, and can be stoked up by people with an agenda. The Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany is an example of how otherwise "normal" Germans were roused against a Jewish minority for political reasons, and you can find similar examples in previous revolutions: French, Bolshevik, whatever. Or watch the movie Do The Right Thing for a more modern cultural take.

"Normal" Muslims aren't the ones attacking people. Some are apathetic to the whole thing while some are sympathetic and feel equally resentful of extremists as the Christians do.

The people who are behind all of this are the millions of extremists who were previously somewhat controlled by the former regime. They've always had the intention, they've just never had the opportunity for such frequent and blatant attacks up until now.

I can understand how the OP feels - assuming he is a Christian, and Christians are being threatened, it's tempting to see what's happening as anti-Christian, but that's missing the big picture.

No it's not. It's by and large the sole motive behind these events. This is not about fictional tribes or race. It's purely an issue of a surprisingly large number of scumbag extremists protected by their political power and majority status oppressing and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

All minorities, ruling or otherwise, are in danger in revolutionary environments

I assume by now you realise that sectarianism in Egypt didn't only begin to exist in Spring 2011? Lest we forget the thousands killed decades and years before any of this "Arab Spring revolution" nonsense began.

raah!

Rented Mule wrote: »

'Sub-educated kuckledragger' ?

Oh the irony.

Yeah, it's fairly ironic that he made a typo alright. Oh wait!

What an ironic use of the word irony!

Yahew

Rented Mule wrote: »

'Sub-educated kuckledragger' ?

Oh the irony.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What is a kuckle?;) If it's what I think it is, maybe Yahoo should stop thinking with it and trying to dismiss posters who disagree with him as "sub-educated". It's soooooo zionazi to dismiss those you don't like as "sub-" something or other.:D:D:D

Oh FFS. I know how to spell knuckle. Is that all you have - a remedial pointing out of one typo, that or some silly name-calling ( zionazi? What? Has this thread even mentioned Israel? Do I even support Israel? Is there any evidence that I have ever posted about Israel - to put you out of your suspense I don't care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm hoping for a draw.).

Do you think these kind of arguments passes muster outside some sophomoric doped up college hall? It doesn't. Do you think you can stand up in a debate and, ignoring the substantive points of the previous argument, snigger that your opponent mispronounced a word, and sit down to watch family guy ( theres a talking dog!!) on your iPod, sniggering like Beavis and Butthead. Well you can - but nobody would take you seriously.

In fact I am a centrist. Go back a bit in my posts and you will find me taking on a libertarian in the Politics section. However this thread is appalling. The reaction to ethnic cleansing, or cultural genoicde should never be sneers, or stupid links to your favourite family guy show, or all the other idiocies about just how un-christian you are in 2011. Who cares.

If some Egyptians were threatening to wipe out fashionable groups - like homosexuals - this thread would be closed and posters banned for attacks on the group being prosecuted.

But morality isn't just about what is happening to fashionable groups, its a bit above that.

By the way, I am pretty sure that if the prophets of New Atheism - an acceptable and recognised term, as it happens - like Hitchens and Dawkins, both of whom I have been reading for two decades or so were to come across this thread they would be appalled too. Especially Hitchens, who has written against every form of ethnic cleansing, even ones poo-pooed by his former colleagues in the Left. Learn from that.

bnt

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Let me be honest, it appears to me that you aren't too knowledgeable about Egypt. Libya and other North African countries may be tribal countries but modern Egypt can in no way be described as tribal.

Why are you banging on about Egypt? The OP is about the Middle East in general, mentioning Egypt as an example only, not as the central thesis. Nor did I say the problems in the Middle East were all tribal - try reading what I wrote again, if you don't mind? Must everything be black and white to you - no room for grey areas?

I was trying to make the point that focusing on a single incident or group of people is to miss the big picture. The situation with the Copts in Egypt is horrible, but they are not the only minority group at risk. Inter-tribal retribution is kicking off in Libya too. Revolutions and their aftermaths are opportunities to settle old scores - religious or otherwise, it doesn't really matter which. I'm not saying I approve of it: I've just read a bit of history, and know that it happens, and what I think makes not the slightest bit of difference.

partyatmygaff

bnt wrote: »

Why are you banging on about Egypt?

Egypt's the only country involved in this Arab Spring business with a sizeable Christian population. It also has the longest history of sectarian problems as far as i'm aware. Not only that but whatever happens over there directly affects me as I have family over there.

The OP is about the Middle East in general, mentioning Egypt as an example only, not as the central thesis. Nor did I say the problems in the Middle East were all tribal - try reading what I wrote again, if you don't mind?

I understand perfectly what the OP meant and what this thread is about. How does "Christians being driven out of the Middle East" relate to tribal issues in Syria and Libya? There is no similarity or valid comparison to be made and to attempt to make one is absurd to anyone familiar with the situation at hand.

I was trying to make the point that focusing on a single incident or group of people is to miss the big picture. The situation with the Copts in Egypt is horrible, but they are not the only minority group at risk. Inter-tribal retribution is kicking off in Libya too. Revolutions and their aftermaths are opportunities to settle old scores - religious or otherwise, it doesn't really matter which.

Tribal issues in Syria and Libya are dissimilar to the sectarian issue in Egypt.

Nodin The Gimp

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, combat bigotry with bigotry. I see no flaw in that plan at all.

Why that's because you're a total cúnt.

KeithM89_old

Nodin The Gimp wrote: »

Why that's because you're a total cúnt.

Banned

Ellis Dee

Yahew wrote: »

Oh FFS. I know how to spell knuckle. Is that all you have - a remedial pointing out of one typo, that or some silly name-calling ( zionazi? What? Has this thread even mentioned Israel? Do I even support Israel? Is there any evidence that I have ever posted about Israel - to put you out of your suspense I don't care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm hoping for a draw.).

Do you think these kind of arguments passes muster outside some sophomoric doped up college hall? It doesn't. Do you think you can stand up in a debate and, ignoring the substantive points of the previous argument, snigger that your opponent mispronounced a word, and sit down to watch family guy ( theres a talking dog!!) on your iPod, sniggering like Beavis and Butthead. Well you can - but nobody would take you seriously.

In fact I am a centrist. Go back a bit in my posts and you will find me taking on a libertarian in the Politics section. However this thread is appalling. The reaction to ethnic cleansing, or cultural genoicde should never be sneers, or stupid links to your favourite family guy show, or all the other idiocies about just how un-christian you are in 2011. Who cares.

If some Egyptians were threatening to wipe out fashionable groups - like homosexuals - this thread would be closed and posters banned for attacks on the group being prosecuted.

But morality isn't just about what is happening to fashionable groups, its a bit above that.

By the way, I am pretty sure that if the prophets of New Atheism - an acceptable and recognised term, as it happens - like Hitchens and Dawkins, both of whom I have been reading for two decades or so were to come across this thread they would be appalled too. Especially Hitchens, who has written against every form of ethnic cleansing, even ones poo-pooed by his former colleagues in the Left. Learn from that.

Chill out. If you write silly things, you have to accept that people will laugh at you.:p And you really come across as rather arrogant and intemperate when you have to resort to putting down those who disagree with you as poorly/inadequately educated. What does it matter if I quit school at 12? I could ask you to tell us all what your own educational level is, but don't bother. Read back through some of your earlier posts (as I'm sure others have done) and it seems that mocking people for what you imagine is their accents and phonetically rendering what you think they say is a regrettable habit of yours. Very Christian of you, though. You sky fairy worshippers never disappoint me.

Incidentally, I have never written the words "ethnic cleansing". And I don't think that is what is going on in the Middle East. There are three reasons for what is happening there: 1. Power, 2. Power, 3 Power.

Sorry, need to break off to have a good sn1gger.:D:D

Zebra3

Cavehill Red wrote: »

the ethnic cleansing of Coptic Christians in Egypt is another.

How is it ethnic cleansing?

partyatmygaff

Zebra3 wrote: »

How is it ethnic cleansing?

Simple.

Oppress and intimidate people enough and they will either leave or simply fall under the feet of their oppressors. It really all started with Sadat. He described himself as a "Muslim leader of a Muslim country" completely ignoring the sizeable Christian population. Couple that with him essentially interning the Patriarch and swearing to "Either convert every Copt to Islam or have them as no more than beggars or shoe cleaners" it's not hard to see where this whole idea of ethnic cleansing came from.

marty1985

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

>>>> Christianity Forum

As long as it eventually leads to the total annihilation of all religions, I couldn't give a damn.

From reading through this thread, I get the feeling that people too often... not misunderstand... but rather, refuse to understand. It's indicated by indefensible knee-jerk statements like the one above, which in turn indicate a type of mental banishment, a refusal to understand because the events are so distant from our comfortable existence and our comprehension. I wasn't very aware of events as they are unfolding in Egypt, but in light of this thread I will pay more attention.

old hippy

marty1985 wrote: »

From reading through this thread, I get the feeling that people too often... not misunderstand... but rather, refuse to understand. It's indicated by indefensible knee-jerk statements like the one above, which in turn indicate a type of mental banishment, a refusal to understand because the events are so distant from our comfortable existence and our comprehension. I wasn't very aware of events as they are unfolding in Egypt, but in light of this thread I will pay more attention.

It's not too difficult to work out that the dreadful targetting of others is down to the evils of religion. I, for one, do give a damn but the world would be a better place without all these superstions dividing us. In my view.

partyatmygaff

old hippy wrote: »

It's not too difficult to work out that the dreadful targetting of others is down to the evils of religion. I, for one, do give a damn but the world would be a better place without all these superstions dividing us. In my view.

Newsflash:
Resources, political opinions and heritage divide people. That does that not make any of the three examples I mentioned inherently evil or unsavory.

old hippy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Newsflash:
Resources, political opinions and heritage divide people. That does that not make any of the three examples I mentioned inherently evil or unsavory.

I take on board your examples but I'll stick with religious superstitions in the meantime.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It's an interesting paradox. It kind of makes you wonder why more atheists just aren't simply apathetic in a nothing to see there type of way. If God doesn't exist, what's there to say about Him other than to discuss it in a similar fashion to other mythologies such as Homer's Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

There would still be much to say on the topic. People like yourself are spreading lies on this forum by claiming it does exist, and other people profit from those lies through cons and worse. I find it justifiable to discuss the subject and prevent people like yourself spreading lies and thus facilitating the exploitation of the fooled.

We have whole boards in our society dedicated to advertising standards and ensuring that people selling products or services live up to what their claims say. The product people like you are selling is religion and there is simply no evidence, argument, data or reasons substantiating ANY of the core claims you make even an iota. I think it is about time the law starts getting applied to the churches and others selling and profiting on those lies.

philologos wrote: »

My position clearly differs in that I believe there is good reason to believe that God exists and that the Gospel is true

So you keep saying. Ad Nauseum. However it has been noted on numerous occasions that you cop out and run each and every time you are asked for those reasons... even going so far as to pretend you have people on ignore, when you do not, in order to get away with having to give the reasons... despite the fact you continue to reply to those people and sending them PMs despite claiming publicly they are being "ignored". Such are the tactics promoting your fantasies are forced to rely on it seems.

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There would still be much to say on the topic. People like yourself are spreading lies on this forum by claiming it does exist, and other people profit from those lies through cons and worse. I find it justifiable to discuss the subject and prevent people like yourself spreading lies and thus facilitating the exploitation of the fooled.

We have whole boards in our society dedicated to advertising standards and ensuring that people selling products or services live up to what their claims say. The product people like you are selling is religion and there is simply no evidence, argument, data or reasons substantiating ANY of the core claims you make even an iota. I think it is about time the law starts getting applied to the churches and others selling and profiting on those lies.



So you keep saying. Ad Nauseum. However it has been noted on numerous occasions that you cop out and run each and every time you are asked for those reasons... even going so far as to pretend you have people on ignore, when you do not, in order to get away with having to give the reasons... despite the fact you continue to reply to those people and sending them PMs despite claiming publicly they are being "ignored". Such are the tactics promoting your fantasies are forced to rely on it seems.

I'm sorry but what exactly do your issues with philologos and theists in general have to do with this thread? The tired old "God debate" has been done to death both on and off boards. I'm not one to tell you what to do but it looks both extremely petty and nigh on childish that you completely ignored the topic of the thread to just post your rant about philologos and religion.

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm sorry but what exactly do your issues with philologos and theists in general have to do with this thread?

I replied to what the user said. That is all. I have seen no reason thus far not to do so when I have something to say in reply to what a user says.

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I replied to what the user said. That is all. I have seen no reason thus far not to do so when I have something to say in reply to what a user says.

How many times have you "replied" to him? How many times have you called him a liar thus far? Quite a number of times, often in the exact same vein... which is ok and acceptable so long as it's in the appropriate thread where your argument follows the thread of conversation.

However, personally, I'd be quite unsure about someone who can completely ignore what appears to be essentially ethnic cleansing in order to "reply" to a week old comment by someone who he almost constantly argues with in other more relevant threads. To me, it screams of "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET. ATTACK!".

It's rather like someone walking by a group of people being harassed and attacked on the street by thugs and then proceeding to ignore their plight and have a high and mighty conversation about philosophy with the people trying to help them in the near vicinity. I'd almost call it an utter lack of empathy and humanity but who am I to judge?

nozzferrahhtoo

The delay in my reply was due to my being on vacation all last week and I was not posting. Again I replied to what he said. So rather than push this thread off topic by taking up your personal issues with me that would be better suited to PM where most people who have a personal issue with me have in the past had the decorum to take it up, I will push it back on topic by essentially repeating what I said. The user in question asked why atheists do not essentially shut up.... saying that if there is no god then they essentially have nothing to say on the topic. Micheal Nugent of Atheist Ireland covered a similar question recently.

The opposite is in fact true. The fact there appears to be no reason to think there is such an entity means that the worldviews based on it are flawed and hence there is a lot to say about it. I am sure you would agree that if you built a world view around the idea you could fly.... you would quickly run into issues... probably terminal ones.

The further disconnected a world view is from reality, the more harm it can potentially cause and the world view based on god appears not just to be somewhat unsubstantiated, but TOTALLY unsubstantiated in any way. Yet it is pushed into our halls of power, education and science and people are conned out of not just time but money and even life itself because of it.

So I disagree strongly with the user who suggested atheists should have nothing to say on the topic of god and I am suspicious of anyone who would say it as I am sure the user and those like him would love to live in a world where those that disagree with him would simply shut up and stop asking for inconvenient things like substantiation for his claims and leave them off to simply make them unchallanged.

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

It's an interesting paradox. It kind of makes you wonder why more atheists just aren't simply apathetic in a nothing to see there type of way.

People are never apathetic, we all insist on spreading what we consider to be the good word. Christians would justify it as doing gods work while atheists justify it by saying Christians are living in a fantasy land.

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The delay in my reply was due to my being on vacation all last week and I was not posting.

You're missing the point completely. It's not about when you decided to reply. It's the mere fact that you completely ignored a serious humanitarian issue and just came here to reissue the usual
rant.

Again I replied to what he said. So rather than push this thread off topic by taking up your personal issues with me that would be better suited to PM where most people who have a personal issue with me have in the past had the decorum to take it up, I will push it back on topic by essentially repeating what I said.

My personal issues with you? IIRC I have never before actually talked with you here on boards. Judging by what i've seen in this thread however I must say that my first impression of you isn't exactly complementary. In any case, you're not one to talk about taking threads off topic with personal gripes against other users and their viewpoints.

The user in question asked why atheists do not essentially shut up.... saying that if there is no god then they essentially have nothing to say on the topic. Micheal Nugent of Atheist Ireland covered a similar question recently.

The opposite is in fact true. The fact there appears to be no reason to think there is such an entity means that the worldviews based on it are flawed and hence there is a lot to say about it. I am sure you would agree that if you built a world view around the idea you could fly.... you would quickly run into issues... probably terminal ones.

The further disconnected a world view is from reality, the more harm it can potentially cause and the world view based on god appears not just to be somewhat unsubstantiated, but TOTALLY unsubstantiated in any way. Yet it is pushed into our halls of power, education and science and people are conned out of not just time but money and even life itself because of it.

So I disagree strongly with the user who suggested atheists should have nothing to say on the topic of god and I am suspicious of anyone who would say it as I am sure the user and those like him would love to live in a world where those that disagree with him would simply shut up and stop asking for inconvenient things like substantiation for his claims and leave them off to simply make them unchallanged.

With all due respect, if you've got issues with theists as it appears you do then it would be more appropriate to discuss it in one of the other few hundred threads dedicated solely to the issue.

I'm amazed that anyone can think it's appropriate to hijack a thread about people being intimidated, harassed and killed to post a recycled rant about a particular user and religion in general without so much as a hint towards the main topic of the thread.

In any case, that's the end of it from me. If you want to go on and hijack the thread to convert it to another generic and pointless "God debate" thread then by all means do so. If taking the focus away from a serious humanitarian issue to argue (Again) for your own ideology sounds like the right thing to do then go ahead and do so.

old hippy

I, for one, think we need more generic and pointless "God debate" threads, if only to hilight the pointlessness and evils of religion. And how it sets people against people.

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're missing the point completely. It's not about when you decided to reply. It's the mere fact that you completely ignored a serious humanitarian issue and just came here to reissue the usual
rant.

From my perspective the point is being missed by you, not me. Again: I replied directly to what the user said. That is how conversation works. I would recommend, though likely you will not heed it, taking any further issues you have with me up in PM or with a moderator, so as not to derail the thread any further. Until then your opinion has been noted. Though there has been some utility in your replies as the user in question who claims (falsely) to have me on ignore can also read my posts in your quoted replies. So thanks for that at least.

As you yourself say... and I wholly agree.... this is a serious humanitarian issue and as such it is one that we should ALL be concerned about. That is why I reject the user above who claims Atheist should/can have no input on the matter. They very much can. They very much do. They very much should.

philologos

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm sorry but what exactly do your issues with philologos and theists in general have to do with this thread? The tired old "God debate" has been done to death both on and off boards. I'm not one to tell you what to do but it looks both extremely petty and nigh on childish that you completely ignored the topic of the thread to just post your rant about philologos and religion.

It doesn't have much to do with it. I suspect the real reason that nozzferrahhtoo objects to my posts is because I profess Jesus as my King and as my Lord, and not just my King and my Lord but the Lord of all Creation.

How do I know this? - It's quite simple. If I decided to become an atheist tomorrow, nozzferrahhtoo's objection to who I am would go away immediately. It is because I profess that Jesus is Lord, and that there is a fundamental issue at the core of humanity that needs addressing that He is opposed to what I post and who I am intrinsically as a human being.

He regards God's truth as lies, and I regard atheism as a lie that leads us away from God. He is an advocate for Atheist Ireland, I am an advocate for Jesus. I don't deny that. I'm an advocate for Jesus because I believe He is the only way that man can be saved from the righteous punishment that they deserve as a result of rebellion against their Creator. He regards the Gospel of Jesus as foolishness, I regard it as the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).

I don't say man in the sense of the other. I'm very much entangled in this. I used to live my life in rebellion of the Lord Jesus. Indeed He died while we were still sinners according to the Christian narrative (Romans 5:6-8), but we indeed are all sinners (Psalm 14, Romans 3:23). I still remember very specifically the moment I prayed to God to help me to find out who He really was (if He was really there). I expected that prayer to fall on deaf ears, but yet here I am today as a follower of His.

As for why I have nozzferrahhtoo on my ignore list, and why I lifted this ignore temporarily you can find more information here. I actually regret that I have had to do this. There are only 3 people on my ignore list on boards.ie out of the countless people I have spoken to here. I'm also open to lifting this if nozzferrahhtoo is willing to have a frank and fair conversation. Until then I don't know how productive it would be.

But no, I'm not surprised that nozzferrahhtoo is so vocal about my position. The Gospel is offensive in so far as it says that we are wrong and God is right, and as a result of this we need to turn back to Him. My position is simple, I unapologetically put forward that Jesus is our Lord and that we need Him as the root of our being. My job (as a follower of Jesus rather than my career) is to introduce people to Jesus, but it is up to them ultimately as to whether or not they want to meet Him. It's been an exciting journey the last few years, a lot of people have been curious to hear about Him, others couldn't care less, others quite aggressively opposed. Ultimately, if there is a chance that what is being proclaimed about Jesus is true, there is a chance that it changes everything. The question I'd leave those who read this post with is this: Are you willing to find out more about something that could be so life-transforming even on an experimental level?

The reason that I post about Jesus is simply this:

The question so much isn't really that you don't have reason to believe in the Lord Jesus. The question is whether or not you're willing to put your trust in Him. If you wish to keep living your way which ultimately results in death and condemnation that is ultimately your choice although a choice that is ultimately tragic. If you wish to accept Jesus, and live as you were created to, I can only welcome you into our family. I long that as many people in the world come into our family before they die. I long that as many people know the truth.

This is the only reason I post about Jesus on boards.ie. It's the only reason that I try to speak to my friends and colleagues about Jesus, it's because I honestly believe that Jesus will transform your life. I believe that all humankind longs to know of their eternal destiny, and their ultimate origins. Of course it is important that we care for humanity and serve their temporal needs on this earth. That's hugely important infact. However, it is not as important as the eternal need, the eternal need for Jesus Christ. I get accused of a lot of stuff from patent dishonesty, to being a Bible basher, in some cases a fundamentalist. No doubt many people on boards.ie think that I'm obnoxious and intolerant for saying that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that nobody can come near God without aaccepting Him and indeed that all people (myself strongly included) are sinners and need to be saved. I'm happy to be accused of these things ultimately because I care for humanity. I want people to know Jesus and be saved.

Nothing more, nothing less.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

How do I know this? - It's quite simple. If I decided to become an atheist tomorrow, nozzferrahhtoo's objection to who I am would go away immediately.

My objections to you are solely based on one thing: You make entirely unsubstantiated claims. I have an issue with unsubstantiated claims and thus as long as you continue to make them I will continue to take issue with them. If you suddenly stopped making them or suddenly started substantiating them then yes... my issue with you would disappear entirely. The same is true for any other user I see making such claims.

Pretending to have me on ignore to avoid answering calls to substantiate your claims does not make those calls go away. You do not get to call for "frank and fair" conversations however given the past showed you putting words in my mouth or wholesale avoiding whole parts of my posts in order to avoid my calls for you to substantiate your claims. I in fact put great time, effort and decorum into long and thought out replies to your supposed supports for your claims.

RichieC

STOP SAYING JESUS IS LORD IN THERE!!

old hippy

An interesting thread bogged down in pointless dogma and biblical bobbins

Necron

Indeed, I do not recognize a god but I do not force my beliefs on others either.