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.

[bluethread]

[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.

I was afraid you were going to play fast and loose with the term "fact". When you said, "When a believer makes a statement of fact", I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you meant asserted something as fact. However, now, when speaking of a nonbeliever, we are to see it as a statement of an actual fact. So, are we talking about what one is asserting, or are we presuming the statement to be indisputable fact?

[bluethread]

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.

Says whom? We are talking about forum rules, not ordination.

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

Agreed, I am just saying that one need not be a theist in order to preach. Al Gore preaches the doctrine of man made global warming. Some would say that bringing Al Gore and man made global warming up in every thread of the S&R forum would be preaching.

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?

No sometimes that is not the question and, I propose, repeatedly bringing up that question, especially when it is not related to an OP can constitute preaching. Preaching against, but preaching none the less.

[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.

I was afraid you were going to play fast and loose with the term "fact". When you said, "When a believer makes a statement of fact", I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you meant asserted something as fact. However, now, when speaking of a nonbeliever, we are to see it as a statement of an actual fact. So, are we talking about what one is asserting, or are we presuming the statement to be indisputable fact?

Joshua 10:
[12] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
[13] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (KJV)

I used cut and paste to take this quote from the online King James Version of the OT. That the OT says that the sun and moon stood still in the midst of heaven for about a whole day is a fact. That this event ever actually occurred is a point of dispute. For the sun and moon to have "stood still in the midst of heaven for about a whole day" would have required that the Earth's rotation had become suddenly arrested. Pointing out that this is an unrealistic claim, and to use this passage to establish that scripture is filled with claims that clearly represent unrealistic apparent fabrications is hardly playing "fast and loose" with the facts. For you to point to this passage and assert that it unequivocally proves the existence of God and His power, because you personally assume that the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God," would amount to preaching. Just because it happens to be written in the Bible, is not in and of itself proof that a thing is true. For me to use the Bible to cast aspersions on claims of the inerrancy of the Bible is perfectly valid. The Bible does not represent proof of the truth of the Bible in the same way your beliefs themselves do not represent proof that your beliefs are true. Using the Bible as proof of the truth of the Bible is preaching, unless you are also bringing in supporting evidence. Many of us here are already pretty well versed in what the Bible says.