This is the sum total of all my posts about my faith. I challenge you to find something that looks like proselytizing: to induce someone to convert to one's faith ...
Okay.
"True Christianity is love and God is Love."
The above remark you confirmed posting is religious propaganda and as such, is proselytizing xtianity.
"The theories are an excuse to convince themselves there is no God."
Characterizing challenges to xtians to provide evidence of
their claims asserting that 'there is a g-d' as "excuses" in response to an irrational demand that a negative premise be 'proven', (e.g., that there 'isn't a g-d'), consitutes both a logical fallacy and an implicit proselytizing of an inherent premise that there is such a supernatural being.
"If you get down to studying the Bible, you will find it is really simple and you don't have to believe outrageous theories."
That is a false assertion since one who 'studies the bible'
is required to have "faith" to believe the "outrageous theories" presented in that dubious collection of documents. That requirement/admonishment contained within "the bible" is inherently proselytizing as is the recommendation to study that dubious collection of documents.
"I believe a higher power has given us the capability to learn and do all sorts of things.
Yes, I fully expect to see my brother again in Heaven someday with other members of my family who were believers. My mother was a wonderful Christian woman who prayed for her children every day. But I believe when my brother died he had a family reunion in Heaven with them and other family members."
The public, (FC forums), expression of such beliefs constitutes proselytizing those beliefs, (e.g., play upon any fears of the deaths of loved ones or, one's own demise, in order to implicitly proselytize xtian beliefs).
My favorite Bible verse is "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want."
Requoting an existing collection of dubious religious documents, (when there are already millions of copies extant),
is using such to proselytize.
"I myself am a Christian and hope that people would respect my faith as I respect theirs."
That remark contains an inherent falsehood, ("respect" for non-xtian viewpoints which is entirely lacking - as shown by other archived FC posts made by the claimant). It comprises proselytizing because it implicitly implies that a xtian respects other 'faiths', (even when a non-religious point of view doesn't rely upon "faith"), and seeks to
convince the reader that such a false assertion is something to be aspired to via becoming a xtian - as if some non-xtians do
not respect the 'faiths' of others, (unsurprisingly, some do - who'd have thought it so?).
"... the Hanover County Sheriff, with tears in his eyes, said, "There is a God and God does answer prayers."
Relating a story concerning someone else making a false attribution of a result to a hypothetical supernatural being is
definitely proselytizing.
"More and more of the modern archeologists have said that their work is proving that Biblical narratives and locations are more accurate than many people have believed. Have you studied ancient history up to the modern day to see how countries and customs have evolved? There is so much more involved than just taking a theory that someone has put forth and repeating it as fact."
As someone who
has studied ancient histories extensively, I'd have to agree that "there is so much more involved than just taking a theory that someone has put forth", (such as the religious speculative theories in 'the bible'), and repeating it as fact." Putting forth unreferenced and thoeries and sophist speculations by religiously-biased "modern archeologists" constitutes an especially insidious proselytizing.
"I am also praying for you and your family. I believe God hears and answers prayers."
Such religious beliefs constitute proselytizing. We therefore have evidence which
you presented, in your own archived words, that contradicts your claim to not proselytizing, (and 'not' doing it
nine times). What such evidence contrary to your claim inherently demonstrates is that such self-delusions are often part and parcel of blind faith.
One more comment from me and I am out of this never-ending debate (??). The comment you posted regarding my assertion that I am not a fundamentalist is made with an assumption that you know what goes on in my head.
On the contrary, that conclusion was reached based solely upon your publically-made posts in that regard, (not upon whatever irrationalities may be going on in you head at any given time).
I have gone through this entire thread and other topics to which I have posted to see if I have posted anything that seems to show extremism on my part. There is no "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious beliefs."
There aren't? Then you may consider that 'elves/gnomes/pixies/sprites/angels/daemons' may have accessed your computer and used it to publically post such remarks under your 'nym.
I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist - there is a difference. I have made no "vigorous" attack on outside threats to my religious beliefs.
Your assertion is contradicted by your other posts which belie that assertion. It's unclear why such an insistant denial of archived evidence is being repeated, (as if a falsehood oft-repeated can become the 'truth'?). Since you've previously declared that you have no responsibility under the burden of proof to support your claims with evidence, it will be left to interested others to choose whether or not they are prompted to provide such evidence, (in the form of your own posted words), which contradicts your empty declarations.
Most of my posts on this thread were an attempt to show that your "vigorous attacks" indicate some sort of psychological problem.
Challenging the specious claims of religious adherents co not constitute the "vigorous attacks", (presumably implying 'fundamentalism on my part); which would "indicate some sort of psychological problem." Using 'pop-psychology' as an ad hominem, (name-calling), is a particularly weak form of arguement. Since you raised the matter of "some sort of psychological problem", it has been theorized by trained psychologists that those who cling irrationally to religious "faith", (that is, to that which has no basis in valid evidence and instead relies entirely upon blind belief), may have seriously debilitating psychological impairments. Those particular impairments do
not apply to those who hold no such irrational beliefs/faith and instead, manifest rationality and logical reasoning.
I am not a psychologist, but there seems to be something lacking in your life that causes you to interminably attack anyone who disagrees with you, especially on one particular subject.
That's another of your false characterizations; challenging an
initial dubious assertion made by anyone, (including religious adherents), does not constitute an "attack" - either "interminably" or intermittently. Conversely, the "vigorous attacks" made by several xtians in
response to such challenges to "anyone who disagrees with" their particular religious superstitions in clearly evident on these forums.
I realize these so-called discussion boards are "enter at your own risk," but is it necessary to comment with your views (to which you are entitled) on a post from someone who has lost a loved one and is, by their own choice, asking for prayers? Everyone knows by this time that you are challenging Christians (xtians) to provide tangible and irrefutable proof that the Christian God does not exist.
No, I've consistently challenged those xtians who make specious religious claims to provide evidence to support them, (which does
not include requests for "proof that the Christian God does
not exist"; the request has always been for evidence that 'g-d'
does exist).
Sans any irrefutable evidence being presented as proof of the claimed
existence of a supernatural entity, the only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that such religious adherents have "faith" that such an entity exists which circularly relies upon their "belief" in same.
Personally, I feel no need to try and prove anything.
While I'm already aware of the dodging of responsibility under the burden of proof for making specious claims, it's good that others can read your own words and discern for themselves whether such comprises blind-faith, sans evidence.
My reaction and my view of your post is that it is at the least ungentlemanly and at the most extremely distasteful.
Coincidentally, my view regarding your posts is that they've consisted of disingenuous proselytizing which I find extremely distasteful as well.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their
own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular
superstition (Christianity) one 'redeeming' feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Community Forum
Topic: Dumbing-down or wising-up? (Read 15931 times)