How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (10 Viewers)

[Zow]

You know those guys with portable amps that stand outside concerts and sporting events screaming at everyone that they're going to hell? Does anyone think those guys have ever converted anyone? Are they following Jesus' teachings about spreading the good word?

Do your local courthouses have religious groups huddled outside of them offering prayer, etc.?

Pretty much every courthouse here in northern AZ will have at least one religious group outside of it during normal court hours. Most of them are Jehovah's Witnesses I believe. They aren't doing anything wrong and don't cause a problem, but I've seen like maybe 2 people ever stop to talk with them and I'm in a court almost daily here since 2008 so I've walked by them 100s to thousands of times.

I always wonder just how many people they are able to "reach" given all that effort though I suppose that if you truly believe what you're preaching then just reaching one person justify that massive amount of time. Reminds me of the guy screaming with a microphone at crows type thing - though much less invasive.

ETA: Come to think of it, I did have a client once stop and do a little prayer with the religious guy there, and it calmed my client so that was cool.

King County (Seattle) doesn't, but Pierce (Tacoma) does. They don't so much pray for people as scream at people entering and tell them they're going to hell. They also hold up anti-abortion signs, which is sort of an odd focus outside of a county courthouse.

Sounds very Christian-like.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

1 Peter 3:9

Don't repay evil for evil. Don't retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will grant you his blessing.

for unbelievers:

What does 1 Peter 3 9 mean?

Instead of repaying evil with evil or insult with insult, Peter commands those in Christ to "bless," or give a blessing. A blessing is a positive statement. For a Christian, it's a request that God would help another person to succeed in some way, that he or she would experience God's favor.

for believers:

A YouVersion content creator breaks down I Peter 3:9 beautifully

---

@Paddington - I'm going to resist the temptation to admonish and instead praise you. That little foot stomp was a rare glimpse at you being human. Petulant, yes, but still - for once you showed yourself to be something more than a BibleBot quoting scripture and referring everyone to post #1.

You may have me on ignore (hopefully someone quotes this and you might see this), but I would love to hear your testimony of how Christ has impacted your life in a personal way.

I ask this because I think it would be impactful to know your experiential evidence that Jesus is alive, and that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I don't remember calling anybody names or stomping my feet. There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth which I did. I don't recall throwing any type of a tantrum or being upset really. I have absolutely no regrets about anything I said. I'm not going to come here and act like I'm fake . I think I have been pretty polite but of course I'm not perfect. I don't see anything wrong with defending yourself though and or the gospel. I believe that Paul's writings were written to the church for today and his instructions were if it be possible as much as lies in you love peaceably with all men. But I don't want to spark a deep theological debate right now about that. I'm a dispensationalist if you know what that is.

You want to know my testimony? I have shared some of it with Joe Bryant. I will have to get something together and post it on here. Yes I had experiences with the Lord that changed my life and why I am passionate about the gospel and actually why I am here.

Your truth is a leap of faith you choose to make in your head and is in no way factual or proven by you EXPLOITING Bible verses for your own personal benefit/amusement

-The arrogance of the thread title is enough to make a person choke
You in no way represent other Christians and you would be much better served working on yourself because you have a lot of work ahead of you


To my FBG Brothers and Sisters, I wrote a lengthy and very straight forward post many pages back, I can bump it but the silence was deafening by the OP
I wish all of you would ignore this thread and let it die a slow death to PAGE 20 because it's awful to have to see it every other day near the top of the FFA
It reminds me of a Jehovah Witness that has a little table and signs down by the most beautiful sections of downtown St Pete or Bayside in Miami where you just want to be left to your own thoughts and be it true or not, you have to see someone that displays subnormal intelligence as they are preaching the secrets of the after-life based on a book that at best was written perhaps 2000 years ago and some sections are closer to 5,000 years old...we update editions to other books in this country every 2-5 years

 

[-fish-]

1 Peter 3:9

Don't repay evil for evil. Don't retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will grant you his blessing.

for unbelievers:

What does 1 Peter 3 9 mean?

Instead of repaying evil with evil or insult with insult, Peter commands those in Christ to "bless," or give a blessing. A blessing is a positive statement. For a Christian, it's a request that God would help another person to succeed in some way, that he or she would experience God's favor.

for believers:

A YouVersion content creator breaks down I Peter 3:9 beautifully

---

@Paddington - I'm going to resist the temptation to admonish and instead praise you. That little foot stomp was a rare glimpse at you being human. Petulant, yes, but still - for once you showed yourself to be something more than a BibleBot quoting scripture and referring everyone to post #1.

You may have me on ignore (hopefully someone quotes this and you might see this), but I would love to hear your testimony of how Christ has impacted your life in a personal way.

I ask this because I think it would be impactful to know your experiential evidence that Jesus is alive, and that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I don't remember calling anybody names or stomping my feet. There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth which I did. I don't recall throwing any type of a tantrum or being upset really. I have absolutely no regrets about anything I said. I'm not going to come here and act like I'm fake . I think I have been pretty polite but of course I'm not perfect. I don't see anything wrong with defending yourself though and or the gospel. I believe that Paul's writings were written to the church for today and his instructions were if it be possible as much as lies in you love peaceably with all men. But I don't want to spark a deep theological debate right now about that. I'm a dispensationalist if you know what that is.

You want to know my testimony? I have shared some of it with Joe Bryant. I will have to get something together and post it on here. Yes I had experiences with the Lord that changed my life and why I am passionate about the gospel and actually why I am here.

Your truth is a leap of faith you choose to make in your head and is in no way factual or proven by you EXPLOITING Bible verses for your own personal benefit/amusement

-The arrogance of the thread title is enough to make a person choke
You in no way represent other Christians and you would be much better served working on yourself because you have a lot of work ahead of you


To my FBG Brothers and Sisters, I wrote a lengthy and very straight forward post many pages back, I can bump it but the silence was deafening by the OP
I wish all of you would ignore this thread and let it die a slow death to PAGE 20 because it's awful to have to see it every other day near the top of the FFA
It reminds me of a Jehovah Witness that has a little table and signs down by the most beautiful sections of downtown St Pete or Bayside in Miami where you just want to be left to your own thoughts and be it true or not, you have to see someone that displays subnormal intelligence as they are preaching the secrets of the after-life based on a book that at best was written perhaps 2000 years ago and some sections are closer to 5,000 years old...we update editions to other books in this country every 2-5 years

To be fair, nearly everyone is having a civil discussion, despite disagreements. Really only one person has been consistently condescending and dismissive of others. No reason to shut down the thread. Perhaps it will result in some self-reflection. That would be a positive.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Admittedly it's not easy, and he brings it upon himself at times, but I think this thread would function better if we spent less time on Paddington.

 

[Paddington]

AI works on factual information.

Also not true. It aggregates data. If you asked it to argue that the earth was flat, it would.

Data is 'supposed to be' factual information, but it isn't always. Therefore, it makes those calculations based on what is supposed to be factual information.

 

[dkp993]

AI works on factual information.

Also not true. It aggregates data. If you asked it to argue that the earth was flat, it would.

Data is 'supposed to be' factual information, but it isn't always. Therefore, it makes those calculations based on what is supposed to be factual information.

So not facts then. You could just say that.

And that’s the point I was/am trying to make with you. I’m not trying to play some gotcha game, I’m trying to show you that words matter. I couldn’t be happier that to found faith and you believe, honestly I couldn’t. Good for you. But words like “facts” “proof” and “truth” all have meanings. You tend to throw them around pretty casually because YOU believe them. Unfortunately that doesn’t make things necessarily so. IMO you’d gain far more traction in what you say you’re trying to accomplish if you were a bit more mindful of how you go about it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

1 Peter 3:9

Don't repay evil for evil. Don't retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will grant you his blessing.

for unbelievers:

What does 1 Peter 3 9 mean?

Instead of repaying evil with evil or insult with insult, Peter commands those in Christ to "bless," or give a blessing. A blessing is a positive statement. For a Christian, it's a request that God would help another person to succeed in some way, that he or she would experience God's favor.

for believers:

A YouVersion content creator breaks down I Peter 3:9 beautifully

---

@Paddington - I'm going to resist the temptation to admonish and instead praise you. That little foot stomp was a rare glimpse at you being human. Petulant, yes, but still - for once you showed yourself to be something more than a BibleBot quoting scripture and referring everyone to post #1.

You may have me on ignore (hopefully someone quotes this and you might see this), but I would love to hear your testimony of how Christ has impacted your life in a personal way.

I ask this because I think it would be impactful to know your experiential evidence that Jesus is alive, and that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I don't remember calling anybody names or stomping my feet. There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth which I did. I don't recall throwing any type of a tantrum or being upset really. I have absolutely no regrets about anything I said. I'm not going to come here and act like I'm fake . I think I have been pretty polite but of course I'm not perfect. I don't see anything wrong with defending yourself though and or the gospel. I believe that Paul's writings were written to the church for today and his instructions were if it be possible as much as lies in you love peaceably with all men. But I don't want to spark a deep theological debate right now about that. I'm a dispensationalist if you know what that is.

You want to know my testimony? I have shared some of it with Joe Bryant. I will have to get something together and post it on here. Yes I had experiences with the Lord that changed my life and why I am passionate about the gospel and actually why I am here.

Your truth is a leap of faith you choose to make in your head and is in no way factual or proven by you EXPLOITING Bible verses for your own personal benefit/amusement

-The arrogance of the thread title is enough to make a person choke
You in no way represent other Christians and you would be much better served working on yourself because you have a lot of work ahead of you


To my FBG Brothers and Sisters, I wrote a lengthy and very straight forward post many pages back, I can bump it but the silence was deafening by the OP
I wish all of you would ignore this thread and let it die a slow death to PAGE 20 because it's awful to have to see it every other day near the top of the FFA
It reminds me of a Jehovah Witness that has a little table and signs down by the most beautiful sections of downtown St Pete or Bayside in Miami where you just want to be left to your own thoughts and be it true or not, you have to see someone that displays subnormal intelligence as they are preaching the secrets of the after-life based on a book that at best was written perhaps 2000 years ago and some sections are closer to 5,000 years old...we update editions to other books in this country every 2-5 years

To be fair, nearly everyone is having a civil discussion, despite disagreements. Really only one person has been consistently condescending and dismissive of others. No reason to shut down the thread. Perhaps it will result in some self-reflection. That would be a positive.

2 Posts
"Self-Reflection" which is code for SHUT the Bleep Up!
Very Christian of you
Nothing to offer in dispute which i'll interpret as compliance/agree with me, got it

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Happy Sunday everybody. Find a good Bible believing Church in attend.

A preview for tomorrow for those that go to one of the "boring churches" on the traditional calendar and three year plan. Like me!

Spoiler: Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

The focus this week is more or less on following, or getting a call, and several themes around these ideas.

The first reading Isaiah 6:1-13 is Isiah's call. The last half or so is one of those troubling passages if read literally, even figuratively. But in context it offers hope that even in the most desolate of places, after the longest of time a seed will emerge. Immediately before this though is one of Christianity's most popular passages "Here I am". During the early service, this is one of the favorites.

The Psalm is Psalm 138 which continues the theme along with the one mentioned below for the epistle. It ends with "You will make good your purpose for me; O Lord, your steadfast love endures forever; do not abandon the works of your hands."

The second reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 starts with the salvation message of this thread and how that message spread from Jesus' first post resurrection appearances through Paul's calling and beyond. It ends with Paul channeling an Avis commercial "we try harder", but the main take away is that Paul's success at following the call is not due to Paul, but due to God. A theme that runs through all of these.

Finally, the Gospel is about Jesus picking up one of his forgotten followers and the forgotten story behind it with Luke 5:1-11. Joking aside I don't connect that much with Peter's impulsive nature, but a pastor that left about a year ago from my church certainly did (per him) and it led to very some interesting sermons from a very different perspective.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Why does "self reflection" have to be code for something in lieu of meaning exactly what was said? I see this sort of approach around here all the time. I don't get it.

 

[-fish-]

Why does "self reflection" have to be code for something in lieu of meaning exactly what was said? I see this sort of approach around here all the time. I don't get it.

It wasn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Why does "self reflection" have to be code for something in lieu of meaning exactly what was said? I see this sort of approach around here all the time. I don't get it.

It wasn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I agree. Just wonder why people do that. Is it that people are uncomfortable just saying what they mean and project that on to others?

 

[-fish-]

Why does "self reflection" have to be code for something in lieu of meaning exactly what was said? I see this sort of approach around here all the time. I don't get it.

It wasn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I agree. Just wonder why people do that. Is it that people are uncomfortable just saying what they mean and project that on to others?

confirmation bias

 

[Paddington]

It's Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend!

 

[Navin Johnson]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

 

[BobbyLayne]

1 Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

(cf. Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11)

---

King Jesus

 

[Captain Cranks]

They are few and far between, my friend

What are you basing this on?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

To generalize like this, you better have a rather gigantic and personal sample size and not just some sort of media / social media perspective.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

To generalize like this, you better have a rather gigantic and personal sample size and not just some sort of media / social media perspective.

Ex-Christian here. I think my sample size is more than adequate

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

To generalize like this, you better have a rather gigantic and personal sample size and not just some sort of media / social media perspective.

Ex-Christian here. I think my sample size is more than adequate

What made you turn away from Jesus and his teachings? Just wondering. You can tell me to pound sand if it's over your line.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

To generalize like this, you better have a rather gigantic and personal sample size and not just some sort of media / social media perspective.

Ex-Christian here. I think my sample size is more than adequate

What made you turn away from Jesus and his teachings? Just wondering. You can tell me to pound sand if it's over your line.

Not to go in to detail, but moved to Europe, took a couple trips to Israel, started to reflect on the differences in societies. Eventually the mathemitician in me wouldn't let faith trump logic/reason.

 

[Godsbrother]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

 

[dkp993]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

In fairness to the thread. The overwhelming majority of the last 20+ pages has been very good discussion with questions being asked to understand and answers being given with the same intent. There have been a ton of great posts (by both sides of the isle imo) and has been very little judgement of ones beliefs (absent largely 1 person).

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

They are few and far between, my friend

To generalize like this, you better have a rather gigantic and personal sample size and not just some sort of media / social media perspective.

Ex-Christian here. I think my sample size is more than adequate

What made you turn away from Jesus and his teachings? Just wondering. You can tell me to pound sand if it's over your line.

Not to go in to detail, but moved to Europe, took a couple trips to Israel, started to reflect on the differences in societies. Eventually the mathemitician in me wouldn't let faith trump logic/reason.

Kinda interested in the "math" angle. I love our scientist and philosopher approaches to it. What perspective do you have they missed?

 

[Paddington]

1 Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

(cf. Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11)

---

King Jesus

Well said and 1000% agree. God's Word is true.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Happy Sunday everybody. Find a good Bible believing Church in attend.

A preview for tomorrow for those that go to one of the "boring churches" on the traditional calendar and three year plan. Like me!

Spoiler: Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

The focus this week is more or less on following, or getting a call, and several themes around these ideas.

The first reading Isaiah 6:1-13 is Isiah's call. The last half or so is one of those troubling passages if read literally, even figuratively. But in context it offers hope that even in the most desolate of places, after the longest of time a seed will emerge. Immediately before this though is one of Christianity's most popular passages "Here I am". During the early service, this is one of the favorites.

The Psalm is Psalm 138 which continues the theme along with the one mentioned below for the epistle. It ends with "You will make good your purpose for me; O Lord, your steadfast love endures forever; do not abandon the works of your hands."

The second reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 starts with the salvation message of this thread and how that message spread from Jesus' first post resurrection appearances through Paul's calling and beyond. It ends with Paul channeling an Avis commercial "we try harder", but the main take away is that Paul's success at following the call is not due to Paul, but due to God. A theme that runs through all of these.

Finally, the Gospel is about Jesus picking up one of his forgotten followers and the forgotten story behind it with Luke 5:1-11. Joking aside I don't connect that much with Peter's impulsive nature, but a pastor that left about a year ago from my church certainly did (per him) and it led to very some interesting sermons from a very different perspective.

Okay, learned today that "Here I am" is a favorite of the late service also. And as such it is one of those moments at a Sunday service that can power one, me in this case through a week. I left out a theme yesterday of the three readings all three Isiah, Paul, and Simon one way or another express "I ain't worthy", but the message is "sure you are". A message that doesn't so much as contradict "we all fall short", but maybe the answer from a loving God full of grace for us is just the same as for these three, has just always been "so what"?

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

 

[Godsbrother]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

No offense but comparing a terrorist planning a nuclear attack and attempting to convince someone of a religious belief is pretty silly.

This is precisely why I stayed away from this thread. Time for me to bow out…

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

That's right, a god, whose love is supposedly unconditional, is going to nuke you if you do not submit.

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

 

[Zow]

But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I tend to agree - which is why I always try to give the evangelist the benefit of the doubt until he or she gives me reason not to.

 

[Zow]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

That's right, a god, whose love is supposedly unconditional, is going to nuke you if you do not submit.

Yep. Such true, unconditional agape love.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

That's right, a god, whose love is supposedly unconditional, is going to nuke you if you do not submit.

Yep. Such true, unconditional agape love.

Love that I am apparently supposed to model when it comes to my child. Sorry, I am never setting my kid on fire. Matbe their god can learn something from me [/sarcasm]

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

 

[Zow]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

I think his point is that to somebody like Paddington he truly believes he has strong and compelling evidence like in the terrorist/nuke example. So he's going to act like he did by warning everybody he can (one message board thread at a time).

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

 

[zoonation]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

That's right, a god, whose love is supposedly unconditional, is going to nuke you if you do not submit.

And, knows before you are even born whether you will submit or not.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

I think his point is that to somebody like Paddington he truly believes he has strong and compelling evidence like in the terrorist/nuke example. So he's going to act like he did by warning everybody he can (one message board thread at a time).

He's wasn't even talking to Paddington. He asked Godsbrother the question

However, I did answer as if posed to me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

I think his point is that to somebody like Paddington he truly believes he has strong and compelling evidence like in the terrorist/nuke example. So he's going to act like he did by warning everybody he can (one message board thread at a time).

He's wasn't even talking to Paddington. He asked Godsbrother the question

However, I did answer as if posed to me.

Without trying to put words in his mouth (he can correct me if I'm wrong), I believe Zow understands that I was talking to you and not to Paddington. You and I were discussing the motives and reasonability of believers who evangelize (e.g. Paddington). My side was that if you are a fully convinced believer -- implicitly Paddington -- then no less should be expected than for you to evangelize.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

 

[Zow]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

I'm not trying to further butt in here, but he's saying that to somebody like Paddington the threat of Hell to somebody not believing correctly or whatever is the same immediate, real threat that knowing that a terrorist plan to nuke a particular place tomorrow is.

That probably sounds extreme, but I frankly think his point is nonetheless accurate. And, if you do conclude that Paddington things of them as the same extreme but clear, present danger, you can understand his comments/posts in this thread.

I also think it may be accurate to equate God (especially of the OT) to a terrorist with the temperament of a moody teenager, so I suppose you can take or leave my commentary.

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

If you have a firm, wholehearted conviction and you're regarding the existence of God as fact, then you're convinced that it's true. Not sure what more can be said about that.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

 

[Zow]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

If you have a firm, wholehearted conviction and you're regarding the existence of God as fact, then you're convinced that it's true. Not sure what more can be said about that.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

I understand you don't want to read through the 30+ pages of this thread, but as a regular participant in this thread I will continue to correct your statements like the bold. Paddington has been mostly criticized for his delivery and his communication with those not in agreement with him. He has never to hardly at all been criticized for making this thread and bumping it every now and again like he has been. I'd also suggest that the sheer size of this thread suggests he has not been "shot down."

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

I'm not trying to further butt in here, but he's saying that to somebody like Paddington the threat of Hell to somebody not believing correctly or whatever is the same immediate, real threat that knowing that a terrorist plan to nuke a particular place tomorrow is.

That probably sounds extreme, but I frankly think his point is nonetheless accurate. And, if you do conclude that Paddington things of them as the same extreme but clear, present danger, you can understand his comments/posts in this thread.

I also think it may be accurate to equate God (especially of the OT) to a terrorist with the temperament of a moody teenager, so I suppose you can take or leave my commentary.

I find it interesting that comparing eternal torment to a bomb that could kill millions of people would be considered an extreme analogy. Ending even an infinitude of lives in a universe where you believe death is simply the end of existence, is practically meaningless compared to one soul going to Hell for eternity. That'd the way I see it anyway. Not trying to be snarky, just legitimately find it interesting that some people would see that as extreme (unless it's extreme in the other direction).

 

[eighsse2]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

If you have a firm, wholehearted conviction and you're regarding the existence of God as fact, then you're convinced that it's true. Not sure what more can be said about that.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

I understand you don't want to read through the 30+ pages of this thread, but as a regular participant in this thread I will continue to correct your statements like the bold. Paddington has been mostly criticized for his delivery and his communication with those not in agreement with him. He has never to hardly at all been criticized for making this thread and bumping it every now and again like he has been. I'd also suggest that the sheer size of this thread suggests he has not been "shot down."

This very conversation is quoting a specific, and fresh, post to the effect that he should not have started this thread.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Every now and then I venture to the FFA and into the most recent page of this thread and am grateful I haven’t been sucked.

if you have faith then great, no reason to subject others to your beliefs. If you don’t have faith then don’t get bothered by those that do.

In the end, none of us actually knows if there is an afterlife so make the best of the life you are living now.

Back to the Shark Pool…

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

Not trying to stir the pot. But it seems pretty obvious why a person would want to make sure people knew something this important, in the case that that person believed it.

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

I think I'm using the word believe more strongly than you're taking it. Not a whim, not a hunch, but you believe this thing is true. You are convinced. Maybe you have what you consider to be evidence, but the only authorities who have the power to investigate the site refuse to do so, due to the cost and what they consider to be lacking evidence. But you are sitting there fully believing based on what you know. You would, I hope, pursue all available avenues to convince someone in power to investigate.

That's why I would make a terrible evangelist. I try to believe, but I constantly doubt. If you're only half-convinced, then why would you be so adamant about getting the word out? You wouldn't. But I 100% expect someone who is fully convinced, to be doing whatever they can to inform the world. They'd have to be sick not to.

I'm using the word as defined. Beliefs are those positions we take beyond what the evidence requires. In this case what you really seem to be asking is if one had strong and compelling evidence to warn someone would they? The answer is, of course, but that is significantly more than a belief.

As with most words, there are numerous definitions.

Ok, what is the definition you are operating under?

I suppose if I chose one from Merriam-Webster it would be "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact".

OK, so how does this apply to your posed question regarding the bomb? And I answered the question with this definition (roughly) in mind before.

If you have a firm, wholehearted conviction and you're regarding the existence of God as fact, then you're convinced that it's true. Not sure what more can be said about that.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Some people have a firm, whole hearted conviction that the earth is flat

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm not trying to further butt in here, but he's saying that to somebody like Paddington the threat of Hell to somebody not believing correctly or whatever is the same immediate, real threat that knowing that a terrorist plan to nuke a particular place tomorrow is.

That probably sounds extreme, but I frankly think his point is nonetheless accurate. And, if you do conclude that Paddington things of them as the same extreme but clear, present danger, you can understand his comments/posts in this thread.

I also think it may be accurate to equate God (especially of the OT) to a terrorist with the temperament of a moody teenager, so I suppose you can take or leave my commentary.

This is different from what eighsse2 said in his hypo though. And I pointed that difference out in my very first reply to his hypo. There's a HUGE difference between knowing something and believing something. In all these responses thus far, they've been used interchangeably. It's one thing to say "hey, I believe this might happen" it's another to say "Hey, this is going to happen".

Remember, this was the question posed to Godsbrother. It had nothing to do with Paddington

If you truly believed that a terrorist had planted a timed nuke in NYC, would you say "well, no reason to subject others to my beliefs, I'll keep it to myself ..."

In hindsight I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and ignored the obvious. All we are doing now is trying to hit moving targets (not yours). Is that by design? I don't know, but it sure seems like a lot of willing moving of goal posts in those replies.

I'm sticking with my first response to this whole thing:

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm sticking with my first response to this whole thing:

If all I have is a belief? Yes. I'd keep it to myself. There's no point in raising a ****storm just because I THINK something. I wouldn't do that to society. Now, if I had evidence and could show my concern, that's a different story. That's not a belief though.

Isn't this the basis for Homeland? The crazy person has beliefs that turns out correct and the one time she kept her mouth shut terrible things happened so everytime now we get 8 or so episodes?

Okay, back to the TV thread.