Preaching

[Danmark]

Erexsaur challenged a moderator ruling on preaching by preaching again and using this justification:

But if really I care about those with whom I talk, shouldn’t I share with them the purest possible truth that guarantees their satisfaction, freedom and justice for all? Sometime there is a need to talk about unfamiliar hardware under the hood to best describe a problem with the car to the customer. I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

This post provides an opportunity to discuss the rule against preaching, because it incorporates the very reason why the rule exists. This is a debating forum, not a congregation of lost souls. One's opinion on how best to help his fellow man does not justify preaching that others should follow another's opinion on how to live or what to believe.

I think that if a non theist got preachy about why everyone should only believe in empirical data and that their lives would improve if they saw the error of their magical beliefs, the non theist should also get tagged for preaching. There may be a fine line between debating a position and advocating others should agree and change their lives by adopting some viewpoint.

[Divine Insight]

My use of Biblical truth as the foundation for my discussion is only an effort to uplift, uphold, and honor those that I speak to.

What is "Biblical truth"?

For those who do not believe that Bible is the word of any God, the Bible is not only untrue in claiming to speak for a God but it's actually an outright lie. So atheists could actually use the term "Biblical Fallacies" just as easily.

From my perspective to even suggest that the Bible is the word of any God is the greatest insult anyone could even give to the very concept of a God itself.

I don't see where the Bible is "uplifting" at all. On the contrary, if the Bible were actually true it would be the most depressing and disgusting thing I know.

So telling me that the Bible is true is not the least bit uplifting. In fact, I can't even imagine why any Christians would think that it is. Are they actually proud that they were the cause of a God to supposed need to have his only begotten son crucified to pay for their evil unworthy nature?

If the Christian Bible were true, it would be the most depressing and disgusting news any human could ever hear. There is nothing uplifting about it at all as far as I can see. It's a totally derogatory paradigm that holds all of humanity responsible for being disgustingly evil.

Where is there anything uplifting in that?

It's not only an insult to the concept of a "God", but it's an extreme insult to all of humanity as well. How is that supposed to be "uplifting"?

[sf]

Erexsaur challenged a moderator ruling on preaching by preaching again and using this justification:

But if really I care about those with whom I talk, shouldn’t I share with them the purest possible truth that guarantees their satisfaction, freedom and justice for all? Sometime there is a need to talk about unfamiliar hardware under the hood to best describe a problem with the car to the customer. I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

This post provides an opportunity to discuss the rule against preaching, because it incorporates the very reason why the rule exists. This is a debating forum, not a congregation of lost souls. One's opinion on how best to help his fellow man does not justify preaching that others should follow another's opinion on how to live or what to believe.

I think that if a non theist got preachy about why everyone should only believe in empirical data and that their lives would improve if they saw the error of their magical beliefs, the non theist should also get tagged for preaching. There may be a fine line between debating a position and advocating others should agree and change their lives by adopting some viewpoint.

Yes.. I get that impression from a lot of non-theist posts actually I never considered it preaching, but it does sound as such.

[bluethread]

I think that if a non theist got preachy about why everyone should only believe in empirical data and that their lives would improve if they saw the error of their magical beliefs, the non theist should also get tagged for preaching. There may be a fine line between debating a position and advocating others should agree and change their lives by adopting some viewpoint.

I don't really agree that is the case. I would think preaching is droning on regarding one's preferred position on something regardless of the line of discussion. I think we have a case in point right here on this thread. This thread is about justifying preaching because one has an interest in the well being of others, not droning on about one's personal dislike for a particular message that is being preached. I think trying to turn every thread into a diatribe on one's view on a singular issue, regardless of the stated issue of the OP, is really preaching, but that may just be me. Just saying.

[ttruscott]

If it is an emotional appeal pro-religion, it is preaching.

If it is an emotional appeal against religion, it is ranting.

Same same attitude - different object.

My .02 cents

[Divine Insight]

I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

These are the kinds of comments that often accompany "preaching".

Within the context of preaching it's an insinuation that people who are refusing to believe in the Bible are refusing to "take their medicine". In this particular case it's even insinuating that they are acting like an immature child.

There is no evidence that the Bible has anything at all to do with any God. Yet this insinuation is an attempt to imply that the Bible is guaranteed "medicine" that people are refusing to take.

As far as I can see the Bible teaches immoral ideals and then accuses everyone of being immoral if they don't support the immorality that the Bible teaches.

Where's the evidence that the Bible has anything at all to do with any God?

That's key issue. Where's the evidence?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I would think preaching is droning on regarding one's preferred position on something regardless of the line of discussion. I think we have a case in point right here on this thread. This thread is about justifying preaching because one has an interest in the well being of others, not droning on about one's personal dislike for a particular message that is being preached. I think trying to turn every thread into a diatribe on one's view on a singular issue, regardless of the stated issue of the OP, is really preaching, but that may just be me. Just saying.

When a believer makes a statement of fact, and then uses various quotations from scripture to establish the truth of that particular fact because that believer has declared scripture to be the inerrant Word of God, that is preaching. Because declaring the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God is the declaration of a belief, not an established fact. When a non believer makes a statement of fact based on scientific observation, using not only the scientific principle involved, but the nature of the way that science has utilized that principle to produce functioning technological devices, that is not preaching. Because that it NOT a declaration of belief. That is pointing to a working scientific principle in action. You may consider promoting science over belief to be the act of preaching. But if so it is preaching from a clearly established basis in fact, and not the position of something which is true simply because it has been declared to be true.

Erexsaur wrote:

I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

Divine Insight wrote:
These are the kinds of comments that often accompany "preaching".

Within the context of preaching it's an insinuation that people who are refusing to believe in the Bible are refusing to "take their medicine". In this particular case it's even insinuating that they are acting like an immature child.

DI makes a good point here. Believers often consider non believers to be little better than petulant children, refusing to abide by the rules imposed on them by their Holy Father because they prefer to be wicked. Is it uncivil for believers to "imply" that non believers are acting like spoiled children? I for one respect the rights of believers to make their best possible case for their beliefs. I encourage it in fact. I understand and accept that opposing points of view exist, and I am not offended by them. I am perfectly capable of making my own position very clearly and succinctly, and I believe that those with opposing points of view should have every right to make their position as clearly and succinctly as they possibly can. What I don't understand is crying to mama when my feelings get hurt, which is something that I have never once done. But I can only suppose that is because my feelings never get hurt.

[bluethread]

I would think preaching is droning on regarding one's preferred position on something regardless of the line of discussion. I think we have a case in point right here on this thread. This thread is about justifying preaching because one has an interest in the well being of others, not droning on about one's personal dislike for a particular message that is being preached. I think trying to turn every thread into a diatribe on one's view on a singular issue, regardless of the stated issue of the OP, is really preaching, but that may just be me. Just saying.

When a believer makes a statement of fact, and then uses various quotations from scripture to establish the truth of that particular fact because that believer has declared scripture to be the inerrant Word of God, that is preaching. Because declaring the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God is the declaration of a belief, not an established fact. When a non believer makes a statement of fact based on scientific observation, using not only the scientific principle involved, but the nature of the way that science has utilized that principle to produce functioning technological devices, that is not preaching. Because that it NOT a declaration of belief. That is pointing to a working scientific principle in action. You may consider promoting science over belief to be the act of preaching. But if so it is preaching from a clearly established basis in fact, and not the position of something which is true simply because it has been declared to be true.

I said nothing about science. If an nonbeliever makes a statement of fact, and then uses various quotations from scripture to establish the truth of that particular fact even though that nonbeliever has declared scripture to be false, and does so even when such a fact is not under consideration, what would one call that?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

I said nothing about science. If an nonbeliever makes a statement of fact, and then uses various quotations from scripture to establish the truth of that particular fact even though that nonbeliever has declared scripture to be false, and does so even when such a fact is not under consideration, what would one call that?

I would call that placing the believer in the position of disputing the truth of their own beliefs. That scripture says a specific thing is simply a point of fact. Whether that thing is true or not is the point of the dispute. Using scripture to disprove scripture is perfectly valid.

[Divine Insight]

This thread is about justifying preaching because one has an interest in the well being of others.

If a person wants to become a preacher let him get ordained by the religion of his choice and preach from the pulpit of a church. That's the whole idea of churches.

Preaching isn't a valid form of debate. This is a debate forum.

It's just rather useless to have someone continually quoting verses from the Bible as their "argument" for why the Bible should be believed. The Bible obviously lays claim to divine authority. I don't think anyone questions that. The real question is why anyone should believe it?

Strangely enough, quoting from the Bible actually does often provide valid reasons to reject it.