Question

[AmbiguousGuy]

If someone simply presents their views as their views, whether it was an explanation of a personally held belief or criticism of a belief held by others, it's not considered proselytism.

If on the other hand someone inappropriately asserts that their views are more than their views (in some regards), but are rather facts (directly or indirectly), or, dismisses the other side's view inappropriately on similar grounds, it's usually considered to cross the line.

I understand. But that makes it pretty hard on us actual Prophets of God. I've had people say, for example, that God despises homosexuality, and I feel a need to inform them that God actually supports homosexuality and wants gay people to have lots and lots of sex.

But I understand the need to weasel. Sometimes I'll say, "I believe that God has told me that he supports homosexuality."

We prophets know how use the weasel words, even when we don't believe them.

If you have a problem understanding something like this, feel free to use Site Feedback for clarification.

I think you guys do a good job of it. There is no such thing as proselytizing vs. non-proselytizing, of course, in any transcendent sense. There has to be a judge. And you guys are the judges. So it works fine.

 

[Badran]

I understand. But that makes it pretty hard on us actual Prophets of God.

I understand, but as you might probably guess, one problem with actual prophets is that there just might be a whole lot of them. And we're in no position to judge someone's prophethood.

So even prophets need to avoid speaking with the authority they no doubt feel wholly justified to speak with.

I've had people say, for example, that God despises homosexuality, and I feel a need to inform them that God actually supports homosexuality and wants gay people to have lots and lots of sex.

But I understand the need to weasel. Sometimes I'll say, "I believe that God has told me that he supports homosexuality."

We prophets know how use the weasel words, even when we don't believe them.

That's an even more understandable need, and i think that the more effort you put into it, the more ways you will find to make a strong statement without being actually authoritative or crossing of the line in question.

Being authoritative in the face of certain claims is somehow natural, and is easier, which is why i think one might feel a tendency towards it. But there are other ways to undermine negatively perceived statements like that, and more importantly, other ways that are more efficient at showing how unreasonable a statement is. And most importantly, if they're worded as authoritatively as you explained, you should consider reporting them!

Cause they'll likely be rule violations.

I think you guys do a good job of it. There is no such thing as proselytizing vs. non-proselytizing, of course, in any transcendent sense. There has to be a judge. And you guys are the judges. So it works fine.

Thanks for the positive feedback.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Being authoritative in the face of certain claims is somehow natural, and is easier, which is why i think one might feel a tendency towards it. But there are other ways to undermine negatively perceived statements like that, and more importantly, other ways that are more efficient at showing how unreasonable a statement is. And most importantly, if they're worded as authoritatively as you explained, you should consider reporting them!

Here's a dicier instance.

Somebody says that God hates homosexuality.

I say No.

He quotes a verse from his scripture where God seems to oppose homosexuality.

I say, "That's not God. That's just your opinion of what God said."

"No, no," he answers, "It's right here in the KJV. I'm just reading it to you."

In that case, I will sometimes quote a verse from my own voluminous writings in which God says that homosexuality is just fine. I might even have to write the particular scripture right there on the spot and then recite it to him.

So maybe neither one of us is insisting on God's Opinion of homosexuality, but each of us is insisting that God said such-and-such.

It can get tricky when two prophets are going at it, you must admit.

 

[Badran]

Here's a dicier instance.

Somebody says that God hates homosexuality.

I say No.

He quotes a verse from his scripture where God seems to oppose homosexuality.

I say, "That's not God. That's just your opinion of what God said."

"No, no," he answers, "It's right here in the KJV. I'm just reading it to you."

In that case, I will sometimes quote a verse from my own voluminous writings in which God says that homosexuality is just fine. I might even have to write the particular scripture right there on the spot and then recite it to him.

So maybe neither one of us is insisting on God's Opinion of homosexuality, but each of us is insisting that God said such-and-such.

It can get tricky when two prophets are going at it, you must admit.

It's tricky, and this is actually exactly the kind of thing that application of the rule is aimed at avoiding. In my judgment, you'd be both basically talking past each other rather than engaging in a meaningful conversation.

Both posters consider themselves prophets, and rather than try to work into explaining why they believe what they believe (or know what they know), IOW, explaining what gives their claims merit over the other's, they're just authoritatively stating what each considers to be a communication from god.

So that's basically the gist of the matter. Such statements can turn a conversation into some form or another of "Yes it is" and "No it's not", which is something we try to avoid by this application of rule 8.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's tricky, and this is actually exactly the kind of thing that application of the rule is aimed at avoiding. In my judgment, you'd be both basically talking past each other rather than engaging in a meaningful conversation.

Yeah, that happens. Me, I enjoy going a little deeper and exploring the foundations of prophethood claims -- what makes one legitimate and the other not.

 

[Ingledsva]

Here's a dicier instance.

Somebody says that God hates homosexuality.

I say No.

He quotes a verse from his scripture where God seems to oppose homosexuality.

I say, "That's not God. That's just your opinion of what God said."

"No, no," he answers, "It's right here in the KJV. I'm just reading it to you."

In that case, I will sometimes quote a verse from my own voluminous writings in which God says that homosexuality is just fine. I might even have to write the particular scripture right there on the spot and then recite it to him.

So maybe neither one of us is insisting on God's Opinion of homosexuality, but each of us is insisting that God said such-and-such.

It can get tricky when two prophets are going at it, you must admit.

LOL! I've enjoyed the humor in your last couple of posts.



As to - "He quotes a verse from his scripture where God seems to oppose homosexuality."


Just explain that all but perhaps one of the quotes they use against Homosexuals, - are actually about Qadash and Sacred Sex (not homosexuals) - which was worship of another God, - and hence a death sentence for a Hebrew doing so.

And the one left in question - doesn't actually have "as with a woman" in it.


*



*

 

[Hawkins]

Why are religious forums filled with athiests trying to convince people not to believe in God, first because their mission is practically impossible because few believers will change to athiesm, second because what's the point when they could be on other forums chatting about things they do believe in?

It's always been a mystery to me why athiests spend so much time and energy on religious forums when they could be doing other things like ........ :beach: :grill::canoe: :disco: :guitar1: :fishing:

It is prophesied.

Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are over (most likely it is now), Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth (public forums) —Gog (atheism as the false god) and Magog (the worshipers of atheism - atheists) —and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth (public forums) and surrounded the camp of God’s people (religious forums in specific), the city he loves (Church and Christianity in specific).

Under the circumstance that they cannot refute/disprove the existence of hell, while they try to persuade people to leave God. The analogy is that under the circumstance that they cannot disapprove the claim of a bomb in a public area but try to persuade people to stay in that area. That's what they are doing.

 

[columbus]

Here's a dicier instance.

Somebody says that God hates homosexuality.

I say No.

He quotes a verse from his scripture where God seems to oppose homosexuality.

I say, "That's not God. That's just your opinion of what God said."

"No, no," he answers, "It's right here in the KJV. I'm just reading it to you."

In that case, I will sometimes quote a verse from my own voluminous writings in which God says that homosexuality is just fine. I might even have to write the particular scripture right there on the spot and then recite it to him.

So maybe neither one of us is insisting on God's Opinion of homosexuality, but each of us is insisting that God said such-and-such.

It can get tricky when two prophets are going at it, you must admit.

It isn't really dicier. Homosex in the 21st century is more moral than heterosex.

What was good behavior many centuries ago isn't the same in a world of 7,000,000,000 humans. Homosex is more moral than air-conditioning.

I said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Tom

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It isn't really dicier. Homosex in the 21st century is more moral than heterosex.

What was good behavior many centuries ago isn't the same in a world of 7,000,000,000 humans. Homosex is more moral than air-conditioning.

I said it, I believe it, that settles it.

And (at least in this case), you happen to be right!

Also early abortion, interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery and sassing cops.

Those are all moral things.

For I have said it; I believe it; and that settles it.

 

[columbus]

It is prophesied.

Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are over (most likely it is now), Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth (public forums) —Gog (atheism as the false god) and Magog (the worshipers of atheism - atheists) —and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth (public forums) and surrounded the camp of God’s people (religious forums in specific), the city he loves (Church and Christianity in specific).

Under the circumstance that they cannot refute/disprove the existence of hell, while they try to persuade people to leave God. The analogy is that under the circumstance that they cannot disapprove the claim of a bomb in a public area but try to persuade people to stay in that area. That's what they are doing.

Your blue parenthetical statements are just you changing what the Bible says to what you wish the Bible said.
But It doesn't. The Bible doesn't say what you want it to say.
Eta. That means what you said is against the Bible.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why are religious forums filled with athiests trying to convince people not to believe in God, first because their mission is practically impossible because few believers will change to athiesm, second because what's the point when they could be on other forums chatting about things they do believe in?

I believe in being amused and entertained by people's foibles, vagaries, and ridiculousness. These seem to be the most apparent and extreme in the context of religious beliefs. Hence, more amusement and entertainment for me.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe in being amused and entertained by people's foibles, vagaries, and ridiculousness. These seem to be the most apparent and extreme in the context of religious beliefs. Hence, more amusement and entertainment for me.

SO, SO, true. LOL!



*

 

[Thief]

I think the word proselytism has been reserved for religious spheres. In other spheres in might be called torture, brainwashing, indoctrination, shunning, and maybe at times a debate. All of these techniques have been used for the purpose of 'changing someone's mind.' The difference is that 'convincing' someone, in that general term, limits itself to conversation.

Not so sure about that 'sphere'...............

Seems we all have some 'agenda'..........don't we?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are religious forums filled with athiests trying to convince people not to believe in God,

first because their mission is practically impossible because few believers will change to athiesm,

second because what's the point when they could be on other forums chatting about things they do believe in?

1. To the degree that it happens (not a lot), it is out of consideration for our peers;

2. not really;

3. and if you don't know already, then it will take a while until I can explain it to you. Some things have to be lived through rather than just explained.

It's always been a mystery to me why athiests spend so much time and energy on religious forums when they could be doing other things like ........ :beach: :grill::canoe: :disco: :guitar1: :fishing:

Because religion is a significant matter, one worth the effort for seeking the best possible understanding, of course.

Did you expect atheists to ignore the existence of religion, or something?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's nice for people to chip in their opinions on things. Information is something which can be shared without losing anything, and that's one of the very few things which works like that.

It only makes sense for someone to announce their reasoning from the opposing side. This is not necessarily an attempt to change anyone's mind, it's simply an attempt to show other options.

 

[Thief]

It's nice for people to chip in their opinions on things. Information is something which can be shared without losing anything, and that's one of the very few things which works like that.

It only makes sense for someone to announce their reasoning from the opposing side. This is not necessarily an attempt to change anyone's mind, it's simply an attempt to show other options.

Not so sure about that.

Never had to change your mind?
Someone comes along and says your wrong.....and by reason...shows you are?

Having heard something 'else'...how then to say you weren't told?

Lose your previous belief?...yes you can.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not so sure about that.

Never had to change your mind?
Someone comes along and says your wrong.....and by reason...shows you are?

Having heard something 'else'...how then to say you weren't told?

Lose your previous belief?...yes you can.

Never said it was impossible, but it's not always the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without the atheists who would I have to debate or make fun of? Don't you get it? God put atheists on this earth for our amusement. I think we should appreciate them.

We also mentor the faithful.
That's what my fundie Saturday helper says anyway.
(I've helped him be more Christ-like, & less volatile.)