Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Technically, no. The phrase "accept Christ" is not found in Scripture. But faith in Christ is. WIthout faith in Christ, you're on your own when you stand before God and get judged.
But I've never seen the term "sky daddy" in the Bible, either. It's clearly an offensive term that is used with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
Honestly? If you want to have a real conversation, it just makes you look rude and arrogant when you deliberately use terms and phrases you know we will find offensive.
Okay. Let's be literal then, since you want that and you seem a little fragile about facetiousness.
I personally have never had a Girl Scout come to my door and suggest I don't know something that I should, that she DOES know, and that only that knowledge will save me from eternal pain.
But I HAVE literally (in those literal words, that last part) have been told this by proselytizers.
I've also been told (and I'm sure we all have, unless we live in caves) that even if we "believe," we may be believing in the wrong way or about the wrong thing; that we may "think" we're good but God knows NOBODY is good enough not to deserve punishment, which is why a savior is required; that if I turn my back now I may be weeping eternally later....and so on.
And yes, that DOES equate to: some god will punish me eternally if I don't do what they do. So no. Never had a Girl Scout say this, HAVE had religious nutters say it. Many a time.
But I'm sure you already knew all this, and that your objections were just a deflection from your insistence that someone asking "Do you want to buy a Dyson?" is exactly the same as "Do you want to be saved from hell?" and that these are equally innocent and inoffensive and just basically the same thing. They AREN'T (duh), but they are equal in one way: both are intrusive. One just happens to be intrusive AND insulting, sideways-threatening and wheedling, not to mention an attempt at emotional button-pushing and manipulation. (And no, it's not the vacuum.)
Okay. Let's be literal then, since you want that and you seem a little fragile about facetiousness.
I personally have never had a Girl Scout come to my door and suggest I don't know something that I should, that she DOES know, and that only that knowledge will save me from eternal pain.
But I HAVE literally (in those literal words, that last part) have been told this by proselytizers.
I fail to see what's so horrible about telling someone "no" or simply not answering the door.
Quote:
I've also been told (and I'm sure we all have, unless we live in caves) that even if we "believe," we may be believing in the wrong way or about the wrong thing; that we may "think" we're good but God knows NOBODY is good enough not to deserve punishment, which is why a savior is required; that if I turn my back now I may be weeping eternally later....and so on.
Perhaps you ought to consider the message, then.
Quote:
And yes, that DOES equate to: some god will punish me eternally if I don't do what they do. So no. Never had a Girl Scout say this, HAVE had religious nutters say it. Many a time.
Because it's tremendously more difficult to simply say "no" to a Christian at your door than it is a girl scout?
I fail to see what's so horrible about telling someone "no" or simply not answering the door.
There isn't anything terrible about it (you mean wrong? Not sure what you mean by "terrible") and many people do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Perhaps you ought to consider the message, then.
Perhaps anyone would have to think I, or anyone else, thinks I've been living under a rock if I haven't "considered the message" before, having heard it nine trillion times. This makes "Have you heard the good news?" pretty damned disingenuous, though it doesn't seem like dishonesty "for Jesus" has ever really been looked down on in the history of the church, so I'm not incredibly surprised by the "DUH, I need to approach you because I'm sure you've never heard of Jesus" ridiculous M.O. of so many proselytizers. Bottom line, though: duh, you know ANYONE on here (or anywhere) has already "considered the message," so you're being disingenuous yourself there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Because it's tremendously more difficult to simply say "no" to a Christian at your door than it is a girl scout?
Yes, because the Girl Scout doesn't keep trying to talk to me even as I'm closing the door, hence putting me in the guilty position of actually closing a door in someone's face, which is bound to push most people's "polite people don't do that sort of thing" buttons, and is supposed to. Nor have I been raised to believe that the Girl Scout's cookies DIED for ME and this is the thanks those cookies get???? More difficult, yes, but again, people do it. Of course it's a person's right, not sure what your point is here. Are you disturbed that nobody's putting up a thread about how intrusive Girl Scouts are? You could always start one yourself if you want, but probably not in this forum. People DO complain abut Girl Scouts being everywhere you look and being in your face, though, it's the butt of many jokes every cookie season, not sure how you missed that.
The irony is that you just can't see the bigotry in your own statements. You're quick to call out others for perceived bigotry, but you can't see your own.
Oh no, I totally understand that. I have said many, many, MANY times, here and elsewhere, that I am intolerant of intolerance, and bigoted against bigots.
You want to call me an intolerant bigot because I don't tolerate intolerance and I consider bigots people who are unevolved (!) hateful and ignorant, please be my guest. I fully embrace it.
I believe the only reasonable, effective approach to intolerance, is to be intolerant of it.
I believe the only reasonable, effective approach to bigotry is to be bigoted against those who practice it.
Does this mean I endorse the idea that people are not entitled to their own opinions, or that those opinions should be censored, or people should be punished for being intolerant bigots? No. Not in any way do I feel like that.
But people who are intolerant and bigoted shouldn't go whining to mama when they are called out for being intolerant bigots. If they don't like that, they should consider more enlightened views, or just not run their mouths about their intolerant bigotry.
Technically, no. The phrase "accept Christ" is not found in Scripture. But faith in Christ is. WIthout faith in Christ, you're on your own when you stand before God and get judged.
I have a far easier time understanding people who believe this than I do people who extrapolate from it that the entire Bible (all the canonical scriptures, written over thousands of years, by mostly unknown authors, and which has been handed down orally in many cases, before being translated and re-translated countless times) as inerrant and 100% accurate and valid, down to the last letter.
Moreover, I don't see what the point is in even believing that. And I don't think most Christians DO believe that. Believing in The Risen Christ doesn't necessarily mean you falter or get it wrong if you don't then 100% accept the talking serpent and the forbidden fruit were actual historical things and not symbol and legend.
Quote:
But I've never seen the term "sky daddy" in the Bible, either. It's clearly an offensive term that is used with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
I can see this as offensive. From where I sit, it comes from the fact that the ancient world was FULL of gods, and many of them did essentially function as, or were viewed as, "parents in the sky." Angry, or loving, punitive, or forgiving, but somehow existing up in the firmament, looking down on us. In fact, it's interesting that you can research the history of many pre-hebraic cultures and actually get a sense of how Yahweh--"the One God" "evolved" from other, older myths and legends about other gods and pantheons of gods.
I wouldn't say, though, that nobody who uses the term "sky daddy" isn't trying to poke the bear a little, but this is where all of us should maybe grow a bit thicker skin and not be so sensitive.
We have a do not call on with both the Mormons and the JW. Only once every couple of years does one come to the door and they are usually new to the area and missed seeing us on the list. I am not bigoted for not wanting them to call on me, I just don't want to drop whatever I am dong to go to the door and discuss with them whatever it is they are wishing to discuss. If politicians' came every week I would do the same for them too, even if it was for one of the parties that I will vote for, during an election it is different but putting up an election sign discourages them and last federal election we had signs from two parties so the ruling party stayed away.
When I have talked to them I must say the Mormons are much better to talk to but that might be because they are young. I find the JW not so informed on what their subject is and do not know how to handle disagreement other than with a blank stare.
I certainly would be opposed to banning either groups from being able to go door to door. But it is the door to a private residence and I can greet who I want and who I do not want. When I owned a store and some Mormon missionaries came in to see the store I treated them the same as I would for anyone else. I actually enjoyed the discussions I have had with them at my home but I just don't want to be disturbed by them when I am doing what I want to do on my own time. I also do not want anyone on this forum phoning me at home to discuss a thread and I come here when I want to do so. That is not bigotry Vizio.
I also think that those who treat Mormons or JW at their doors badly are not being a good and decent person. I try to treat everyone with respect even here when I do not respect everyone I still try to treat them with respect. Actually even those who I do not respect due to their postings , if they came to my door once I would treat them with the same respect as anyone else and would invite them in for tea and to talk. If it was to happen every week I would tell them not to come.
I have a far easier time understanding people who believe this than I do people who extrapolate from it that the entire Bible (all the canonical scriptures, written over thousands of years, by mostly unknown authors, and which has been handed down orally in many cases, before being translated and re-translated countless times) as inerrant and 100% accurate and valid, down to the last letter.
Moreover, I don't see what the point is in even believing that. And I don't think most Christians DO believe that. Believing in The Risen Christ doesn't necessarily mean you falter or get it wrong if you don't then 100% accept the talking serpent and the forbidden fruit were actual historical things and not symbol and legend.
I can see this as offensive. From where I sit, it comes from the fact that the ancient world was FULL of gods, and many of them did essentially function as, or were viewed as, "parents in the sky." Angry, or loving, punitive, or forgiving, but somehow existing up in the firmament, looking down on us. In fact, it's interesting that you can research the history of many pre-hebraic cultures and actually get a sense of how Yahweh--"the One God" "evolved" from other, older myths and legends about other gods and pantheons of gods.
I wouldn't say, though, that nobody who uses the term "sky daddy" isn't trying to poke the bear a little, but this is where all of us should maybe grow a bit thicker skin and not be so sensitive.
I would say the use of sky daddy or sky fairy is derogatory hence I do not use it. But I think the terms Bible hater, Christian hater or God hater are at least as bad if not worse as it is targeted at the person not their belief.
I would say the use of sky daddy or sky fairy is derogatory hence I do not use it. But I think the terms Bible hater, Christian hater or God hater are at least as bad if not worse as it is targeted at the person not their belief.
Well and truly spoken. It goes both ways, definitely.
I would say the use of sky daddy or sky fairy is derogatory hence I do not use it. But I think the terms Bible hater, Christian hater or God hater are at least as bad if not worse as it is targeted at the person not their belief.
I have a question for Viz.
Is it inoffensive to call Greek or Roman or Celtic or Norse god beliefs "mythology" but offensive to call Judeo-Christian beliefs "mythology"? If so, why?
Is it inoffensive to call Thor "a sky god" and Jupiter "a sky god" but offensive to call Yaweh a "a sky god" (or more accurately in its original belief), a "war god"? If so, why?
Is it inoffensive to point to Greek or Roman or Celtic or Norse (or other) beliefs and talk about how "less advanced" and "unenlightened" "pagans" created those beliefs, but offensive to point to Judeo-Christian beliefs and talk about how "less and advanced" and "unenlightened" "Bronze Age" peoples created those beliefs? If so, why?
Is it inoffensive to say all non-Christians are unsaved and, in a word, entirely wrong (and indeed are totally misguided), but offensive to say Christians are entirely wrong (and indeed are totally misguided)? If so, why?
Is it inoffensive to say barbaric murderous pagan tribes believed in the gods X, Y and Z (whatever their local gods were), but offensive to say barbaric murderous pagan tribes created Yaweh? If so, why?
I see a lot of "it's SO offensive to not act RESPECTFUL of the God of the Bible - that MINIMIZES our beliefs!" around here mixed with "any other religion [or no religion] is bogus" throw-away minimizing comments. Really? Things that make ya go hmmm.
I think from now on any time I hear "don't dare disrespect and minimize MY God by not calling him what I call him called!," I will respond with, "Don't dare disrespect anyone else's beliefs...we'll start with: you can no longer say 'God,' you must say 'Allah, SWT.'"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course it's a person's right, not sure what your point is here. Are you disturbed that nobody's putting up a thread about how intrusive Girl Scouts are? You could always start one yourself if you want, but probably not in this forum. People DO complain abut Girl Scouts being everywhere you look and being in your face, though, it's the butt of many jokes every cookie season, not sure how you missed that.
