Bible Discussion: Winning People To Jesus Isn't Possible Anymore.

Winning People To Jesus Isn't Possible Anymore.
Posts: 19

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Sensitive_Asshole
2004-05-04 16:07:47 EST
What's the point? anywhere you work, the majority of people are
Godless, soulless, no good people who you could never change in a
million years. If anything they will only drag down any true
believers left and corrupt them. The time has come to separate from
the filth this culture has created.

You have a media that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week brainwashes the
public into the most satanic, anti-christ views on everything, little
5 year old kids reiterate what they're taught, 'priests are scum,
Jesus people are sick and mentally ill'. God hates your fucking kids,
America.

ZenIsWhen
2004-05-04 17:34:31 EST

"Sensitive_Asshole" <littlefelller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8496d917.0405041207.2f9a7cf9@posting.google.com...
> What's the point? anywhere you work, the majority of people are
> Godless, soulless, no good people who you could never change in a
> million years. If anything they will only drag down any true
> believers left and corrupt them. The time has come to separate from
> the filth this culture has created.

One of the MANY reasons people turn off to religion and christianity is
seeing the TOTALLY ignorant arrogance of assholes like You!!!!



>
> You have a media that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week brainwashes the
> public into the most satanic, anti-christ views on everything, little
> 5 year old kids reiterate what they're taught, 'priests are scum,
> Jesus people are sick and mentally ill'.

Only some .......... look in the mirror and you'll see one!




Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2004-05-04 22:25:48 EST
ZenIsWhen wrote:
>
> "Sensitive_Asshole" <littlefelller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8496d917.0405041207.2f9a7cf9@posting.google.com...
> > What's the point? anywhere you work, the majority of people are
> > Godless, soulless, no good people who you could never change in a
> > million years. If anything they will only drag down any true
> > believers left and corrupt them. The time has come to separate from
> > the filth this culture has created.
>
> One of the MANY reasons people turn off to religion and christianity is
> seeing the TOTALLY ignorant arrogance of assholes like You!!!!

The tone of that last remark aside, I've got to agree.

Take a look at the controversy started by Jim McDermott, when he left
"under God" out of the pledge of allegiance he lead. At first, I thought
he was being a wimp when he claimed that he "forgot". But if you listen
to the recordings of him, he paused while others included the phrase.
So, he knew right where it belonged.

Back when I went to school, the question came up as to what to do when
reciting the pledge if one didn't believe in God. The standard answer wa
just to leave the words out. Those who believe can recite them, those
who don't can skip them, leaving a pause for the others. No problem.

But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.

And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
why winning people over is difficult?

> >
> > You have a media that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week brainwashes the
> > public into the most satanic, anti-christ views on everything, little
> > 5 year old kids reiterate what they're taught, 'priests are scum,
> > Jesus people are sick and mentally ill'.

The media doesn't write the script for the fundies. They just roll the
cameras and take what they get.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaese porrf raed befre postng.

U*@domain.invalid
2004-05-05 14:59:02 EST
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
> pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
> seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
> don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
> further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
> I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.
>
> And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
> why winning people over is difficult?

This highlights one of your problems - how can Christians expect to
persuade unbelievers and skeptics if they can't agree among themselves?
If Truth is the foundation of Christianity, why are its various sects
not converging to one?



Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2004-05-05 16:12:22 EST
u*r@domain.invalid wrote:
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> >
> > But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
> > pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
> > seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
> > don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
> > further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
> > I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.
> >
> > And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
> > why winning people over is difficult?
>
> This highlights one of your problems - how can Christians expect to
> persuade unbelievers and skeptics if they can't agree among themselves?
> If Truth is the foundation of Christianity, why are its various sects
> not converging to one?

Well, its not actually MY problem, but you do make a good point. The
inability (or possibly unwillingness) to arrive at a consensus is most
likely a product of the various sect leaders reinforcing their social
and political power by invoking Christianity. It just wouldn't suit
their purposes to arrive at a consensus.

All of these leaders claim that God speaks directly to them. If so, why
do they differ? Perhaps God has a sense of humor and the recipients of
these wildly varying messages are just the sucker of one of his
practical jokes.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

U*@domain.invalid
2004-05-05 17:16:36 EST
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> user@domain.invalid wrote:
>
>>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>
>>>But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
>>>pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
>>>seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
>>>don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
>>>further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
>>>I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.
>>>
>>>And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
>>>why winning people over is difficult?
>>
>>This highlights one of your problems - how can Christians expect to
>>persuade unbelievers and skeptics if they can't agree among themselves?
>>If Truth is the foundation of Christianity, why are its various sects
>>not converging to one?
>
>
> Well, its not actually MY problem, but you do make a good point.

OK, its a problem for Christian evangelicals of all stripes, for anyone,
that is, who wishes to bring the ungodly into (or back into) what he
would call the fold. I thought you were one such (the former).

The
> inability (or possibly unwillingness) to arrive at a consensus is most
> likely a product of the various sect leaders reinforcing their social
> and political power by invoking Christianity. It just wouldn't suit
> their purposes to arrive at a consensus.

This makes doctrine sound like a consensus reached by a process of
negotiation and compromise, which in some historical cases it actually
was. Why is the Truth so unclear?

> All of these leaders claim that God speaks directly to them. If so, why
> do they differ?

..and about fundamentals - the divinity of Christ, the meaning of the
crucifixion, the factuality of the Resurrection, the second coming etc.
as well as purely modern conflicts over homosexuality, abortion and
women priests.

On top of that, you have the bulk of humanity quite happy with religions
entirely orthogonal to Christianity, with no sign of a global conversion
on the horizon.

Perhaps God has a sense of humor and the recipients of
> these wildly varying messages are just the sucker of one of his
> practical jokes.

If he jokes about such things, who would worship him or pray to him?




JimC
2004-05-05 17:31:59 EST

<*r@domain.invalid>

> ..and about fundamentals - the divinity of Christ, the meaning of the
> crucifixion, the factuality of the Resurrection, the second coming etc.
> as well as purely modern conflicts over homosexuality, abortion and
> women priests.
>
> On top of that, you have the bulk of humanity quite happy with religions
> entirely orthogonal to Christianity, with no sign of a global conversion
> on the horizon.
>
> Perhaps God has a sense of humor and the recipients of
> > these wildly varying messages are just the sucker of one of his
> > practical jokes.
>
> If he jokes about such things, who would worship him or pray to him?

Dunno, don't care here. But I do have one serious question about the
"Left Behind" series. Every time I hear this title, I wonder
if there is a showing of the other cheek, that is, a matching "Right Behind"
series. I do wonder why anyone should care about a left behind
in preference to a right behind, but I've never seen behindedness
charaterized as a trait like right or left handedness. (For the record,
I'm a southpaw. I don't know which behind is dominant.)

Those who care about such things should surf over to

www.jim-collier.com/twolahrs







Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2004-05-06 01:06:33 EST
u*r@domain.invalid wrote:
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> > user@domain.invalid wrote:
> >
> >>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> >>
> >>>But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
> >>>pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
> >>>seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
> >>>don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
> >>>further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
> >>>I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.
> >>>
> >>>And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
> >>>why winning people over is difficult?
> >>
> >>This highlights one of your problems - how can Christians expect to
> >>persuade unbelievers and skeptics if they can't agree among themselves?
> >>If Truth is the foundation of Christianity, why are its various sects
> >>not converging to one?
> >
> >
> > Well, its not actually MY problem, but you do make a good point.
>
> OK, its a problem for Christian evangelicals of all stripes, for anyone,
> that is, who wishes to bring the ungodly into (or back into) what he
> would call the fold. I thought you were one such (the former).

I think that in any organization, the people occupying different levels
will be granted a different view of "the big picture". In the military,
the cannon fodder don't necessarily get to see the overall battle plan.
Christianity is no different. With that in mind, what I believe isn't
intended for just anyone.

> The
> > inability (or possibly unwillingness) to arrive at a consensus is most
> > likely a product of the various sect leaders reinforcing their social
> > and political power by invoking Christianity. It just wouldn't suit
> > their purposes to arrive at a consensus.
>
> This makes doctrine sound like a consensus reached by a process of
> negotiation and compromise, which in some historical cases it actually
> was. Why is the Truth so unclear?

Because it changes, depending on who is doing the preaching. But then
that's what I'd expect if I was looking at orders issued at the bottom
levels of a hierarchical organization.

> > All of these leaders claim that God speaks directly to them. If so, why
> > do they differ?
>
> ..and about fundamentals - the divinity of Christ, the meaning of the
> crucifixion, the factuality of the Resurrection, the second coming etc.
> as well as purely modern conflicts over homosexuality, abortion and
> women priests.

Quite a few differences right there. A local Methodist lesbian minister
appears to have won her case to keep her job. I don't think you'd have
to look very hard to find other Christian denominations in complete
disagreement with their decision. As far as the second coming, according
to some authorities on the scriptures, we're past due. Maybe Jesus came,
took a look around, figured that nobody was worth saving and went home.
Or its more likely that those who claim to have heard the word directly
from God didn't get the date quite right. Pay better attention next
time.

By the way, I hope the people who are figuring on the rapture occurring
within the next 10 years (according to scripture) haven't taken out a 30
year mortgage (that would be fraud). Or they aren't saving for their
young children's college education.

> On top of that, you have the bulk of humanity quite happy with religions
> entirely orthogonal to Christianity, with no sign of a global conversion
> on the horizon.
>
> Perhaps God has a sense of humor and the recipients of
> > these wildly varying messages are just the sucker of one of his
> > practical jokes.
>
> If he jokes about such things, who would worship him or pray to him?

Because that would be consistent with a God that made man in his image.
A sense of humor would just be something we share in common. Of course,
here again, it all depends on your position in the organization. Fear
and obedience are useful tools of command. But I'd expect the drill
sergeants to have a pretty good laugh together over whose squad crawled
through the stickiest mud.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Real programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the
illiterate's form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how
much good it did them.

RainLover
2004-05-06 09:38:34 EST
On Wed, 05 May 2004 17:16:36 -0400, user@domain.invalid wrote:

>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>> user@domain.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>>
>>>>But if you watched the reaction of a few of the fundies to McDermott's
>>>>pledge, they came across as more than a little pissed off. In fact, some
>>>>seemed a little unstable. And this was in front of a news camera. So, I
>>>>don't think McDermott was being anything more than careful not to
>>>>further incite them by claiming it his error. In fact, if I were him,
>>>>I'd have some additional security around for a few weeks.
>>>>
>>>>And with people like this as spokespersons for Christianity, you wonder
>>>>why winning people over is difficult?
>>>
>>>This highlights one of your problems - how can Christians expect to
>>>persuade unbelievers and skeptics if they can't agree among themselves?
>>>If Truth is the foundation of Christianity, why are its various sects
>>>not converging to one?
>>
>>
>> Well, its not actually MY problem, but you do make a good point.
>
>OK, its a problem for Christian evangelicals of all stripes, for anyone,
>that is, who wishes to bring the ungodly into (or back into) what he
>would call the fold. I thought you were one such (the former).
>
>The
>> inability (or possibly unwillingness) to arrive at a consensus is most
>> likely a product of the various sect leaders reinforcing their social
>> and political power by invoking Christianity. It just wouldn't suit
>> their purposes to arrive at a consensus.
>
>This makes doctrine sound like a consensus reached by a process of
>negotiation and compromise, which in some historical cases it actually
>was. Why is the Truth so unclear?

The Truth is VERY clear, just ask any one sect of Christianity and they'll tell you they have the
RealTruth <tm> and all the other ones are false (afterall the door to heaven is VERY narrow and only
a few will get in).


>> All of these leaders claim that God speaks directly to them. If so, why
>> do they differ?
>
>..and about fundamentals - the divinity of Christ, the meaning of the
>crucifixion, the factuality of the Resurrection, the second coming etc.
>as well as purely modern conflicts over homosexuality, abortion and
>women priests.
>
>On top of that, you have the bulk of humanity quite happy with religions
>entirely orthogonal to Christianity, with no sign of a global conversion
>on the horizon.


There is one sign... Islam is on the rise in a BIG way.....

>>Perhaps God has a sense of humor and the recipients of
>> these wildly varying messages are just the sucker of one of his
>> practical jokes.
>
>If he jokes about such things, who would worship him or pray to him?


Oh, come on.... the God who invented Robin Williams, George Carlin, Woopie Goldburg and GW Bush?
The MAN is wicked funny. I think we should all be down on our knees and funny bones praying to a
God like that! :-)

You know.... that's why Muslims but their elbows on the ground, right... to hit their funny
bones.... (and THAT may explain why Islam in on the Rise so fast.)


Maybe a Pastor should open the Church of Devine Humor. It could be open Friday - Sunday to be sure
to hit the right 'sabbath' for everyone (and the second shows could have happy hour prices on Holy
Water (I think that should be vodka and holy water, neat) :-)

James, Seattle


RainLover
2004-05-06 09:44:53 EST
On Wed, 05 May 2004 22:06:33 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>> ..and about fundamentals - the divinity of Christ, the meaning of the
>> crucifixion, the factuality of the Resurrection, the second coming etc.
>> as well as purely modern conflicts over homosexuality, abortion and
>> women priests.
>
>Quite a few differences right there. A local Methodist lesbian minister
>appears to have won her case to keep her job. I don't think you'd have
>to look very hard to find other Christian denominations in complete
>disagreement with their decision. As far as the second coming, according
>to some authorities on the scriptures, we're past due. Maybe Jesus came,
>took a look around, figured that nobody was worth saving and went home.
>Or its more likely that those who claim to have heard the word directly
>from God didn't get the date quite right. Pay better attention next
>time.

Actually, Jesus did come back (1914 according to Jehovah's Witnesses (but He was invisible) I'm not
making that up)....

You may be right though, He did get fed up with us and now he's going to have a second worldwide
Flood... this time he just poked his finger into the Ozone layer and is going to let the melting
poles do the job for Him...

>
>By the way, I hope the people who are figuring on the rapture occurring
>within the next 10 years (according to scripture) haven't taken out a 30
>year mortgage (that would be fraud). Or they aren't saving for their
>young children's college education.

But HE was supposed to come back in the year 1,000 and the year 2,000... what's up with the year
2,014? Or was it just a mathmatical error in the late 90's?

James, Seattle

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron