Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
You seemed to have entirely missed reasonable.atheist's point.
Does the fact that something is deemed a public nuisance means that it should be criminalised and banned, rather than being moderated or regulated? Please think carefully. And you would do well to do a little bit more reading http://www.enotes.com/topic/Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
Public nuisance - it can be either, as i told mr atheist. Religious evangelism, outright ban. Please do take care in reading articles. I find your reading skills poor.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:First of all, I hope you are also reading my responses to Tcmc, because I suspect that your position is similar to his in some ways.
Now, let me illustrate my point further.
You don't like Christians going door-to-door politely asking to share their views on Christianity. You want to ban them for being a public nuisance. Would you also ban Buddhists or MPs or salesmen from knocking on your door?
You don't like Christians politely asking you on the streets whether they can share their views with you. You want to ban them for being a public nuisance. Would you also ban street surveyors, flag sellers, and that woman who sells tissue?
Yes or no?
You are talking about evangelism or the knocking on door part? If the MPs knock on door, while evangelists approach you in public...how?
Which aspect are u focusing on?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
Problem is, once you want to argue about which is "more this, more that" you are treading on subjective waters, and arguing about degrees of differences. Something can be "more this" now and banned. So after when it is "less this" you now lift the ban? Who decides when the line is crossed? It becomes really arbitrary.
Definitely not Oxford English Dictionary
Originally posted by laurence82:
The courts of laws or parliament have not define this, as of now, until there is update, the facts are clear. Banning evangslism is not unlawful. Nobody wish to hear about the laws from Broinchrist, they would want to hear it from the judges or members of parliament.Please provide this evidence. Thanks
laurence,
Who told you that banning evangelism is not unlawful? You are using double standards here. If you say that the word "propagate" has not been deliberated by the courts, then you should refrain from commenting on whether it is lawful or not. But it seems that you can freely comment on it while I cannot. If this is not double standards or special pleading I don't know what is!
Originally posted by laurence82:
Public nuisance - it can be either, as i told mr atheist. Religious evangelism, outright ban. Please do take care in reading articles. I find your reading skills poor.
Reading skills poor? No problem, I can always improve on that. But refusing to acknowledge your ignorance when it was clearly demonstrated? I think that's a bigger problem you have on your end.
Originally posted by laurence82:
You are talking about evangelism or the knocking on door part? If the MPs knock on door, while evangelists approach you in public...how?Which aspect are u focusing on?
I think you have to think through this a bit more. Both in logic and law, you cannot willy-nilly pick one thing you don't like and make a rule for it.
Instead, you have to think about why you don't like that thing. Is it because it's a public nuisance?
If so, what about other things that are also a public nuisance? Would you apply the same rules to those?
In short, a rule cannot be adhoc. It has to be consistent. You cannot make up a rule to ban religious evangelism because it's a public nuisance, and yet allow other similar forms of soliciting that are just as annoying.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:I think you have to think through this a bit more. Both in logic and law, you cannot willy-nilly pick one thing you don't like and make a rule for it.
Instead, you have to think about why you don't like that thing. Is it because it's a public nuisance?If so, what about other things that are also a public nuisance? Would you apply the same rules to those?
In short, a rule cannot be adhoc. It has to be consistent. You cannot make up a rule to ban religious evangelism because it's a public nuisance, and yet allow other similar forms of soliciting that are just as annoying.
reasonable.atheist,
You may not believe this, but you have my vote on this!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:reasonable.atheist,
You may not believe this, but you have my vote on this!
That does my credibility no good at all!
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:That does my credibility no good at all!
LOL!
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:That does my credibility no good at all!
That's not a very reasonable thing to say, not to mention also it commits a genetic fallacy on your part. Chill man, I was simply agreeing with your argument.
The best way for non christians to deal with christians who preach aggressively (look the word here is aggressively) - is to know the bible and use it to deal with them.
Originally posted by winsomeea:The best way for non christians to deal with christians who preach aggressively (look the word here is aggressively) - is to know the bible and use it to deal with them.
winsomeeea,
Just to let you know, you have my vote on that too!
But my experience so far has been that nonChristians by and large just do not know the Bible. Just look at Tcmc.
nowadays ppl go to mega church to get to know fbs and get ons, u dunno meh?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:winsomeeea,
Just to let you know, you have my vote on that too!
But my experience so far has been that nonChristians by and large just do not know the Bible. Just look at Tcmc.
I have bible study before so I suppose I know what christianity is all about at least for the fundamental of it. I respect nice , practising christians who are full of love for people and their God. I see potential of these christians for more good stuff they carry the name of the christian God not in vain.
Having said that, as a human being I have doubts about the bible, too.
Originally posted by winsomeea:The best way for non christians to deal with christians who preach aggressively (look the word here is aggressively) - is to know the bible and use it to deal with them.
Doesn't compute. So if I have a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. all preaching to me, won't I be a very busy person?
Saying "no" is just as valid a response.
Originally posted by winsomeea:
I have bible study before so I suppose I know what christianity is all about at least for the fundamental of it. I respect nice , practising christians who are full of love for people and their God. I see potential of these christians for more good stuff they carry the name of the christian God not in vain.
Having said that, as a human being I have doubts about the bible, too.
winsomeea,
It's fine to have doubts about certain parts of the Bible. But I think the problem is that many are not rigorous in trying to find out the answer. They spot some things that puzzle them and start blasting away as if all Christians have blind spot and are dim-witted to not see the truth that the Bible is a lie or hoax. The Bible has been hammered away for thousands of years, and throughout that time many Christians have taken the time to respond to the critics. I believe the Bible has withstood such hammering and that it will.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:That's not a very reasonable thing to say, not to mention also it commits a genetic fallacy on your part. Chill man, I was simply agreeing with your argument.
Another reason I think this BIC is not the same one I debated with all those months ago. This one has no sense of humor.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Another reason I think this BIC is not the same one I debated with all those months ago. This one has no sense of humor.
reasonable.atheist,
My bad, I did not know you were trying to be funny. Maybe you wanna work on that a little bit more? Otherwise it does seem that you were trying to make a dig at me and you can't fault me for taking it that way.
I did elicit a "LOL" from the next post, so maybe it's your funny bone that needs medical attention.:)
And I notice that you've never denied being a different person from the "previous" BIC.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:winsomeeea,
Just to let you know, you have my vote on that too!
But my experience so far has been that nonChristians by and large just do not know the Bible. Just look at Tcmc.
Smear tactic.
It's not that I do not know the bible well. It's just that you only want to hear the interpretations you want to hear. You only want to interpret the bible according to a Young earth creationist-bible literalist interpretation.
You ignore liberal christians' interpretations, non-trinitarian christians' interpretations and also a non-christian's interpretations.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:I did elicit a "LOL" from the next post, so maybe it's your funny bone that needs medical attention.:)
And I notice that you've never denied being a different person from the "previous" BIC.
By my lights, Tcmc gave an LOL because he/she enjoyed the dig you gave. He simply chose to scoff and revel in it. You think it is funny, but it surely had other undertones.
And why don't I deny anything? Because believe it or not, it's me.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Smear tactic.
It's not that I do not know the bible well. It's just that you only want to hear the interpretations you want to hear. You only want to interpret the bible according to a Young earth creationist-bible literalist interpretation.
You ignore liberal christians' interpretations, non-trinitarian christians' interpretations and also a non-christian's interpretations.
Tcmc,
Till now you have offered no evidence that you are well-versed in the Bible. To say that I only want to hear the things I want to hear, such an allegation can also be applied to you, so it is a moot point. Good for bashing people, but proves nothing. And like I said, I did not ignore the interpretations of others. In fact, I have examined them and found them wanting, just like how I treated your proof-texts.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
Who told you that banning evangelism is not unlawful? You are using double standards here. If you say that the word "propagate" has not been deliberated by the courts, then you should refrain from commenting on whether it is lawful or not. But it seems that you can freely comment on it while I cannot. If this is not double standards or special pleading I don't know what is!
The law does not provide for it, hence i am right until the proper authority had said so.
Simple. Not from you at the very least.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Reading skills poor? No problem, I can always improve on that. But refusing to acknowledge your ignorance when it was clearly demonstrated? I think that's a bigger problem you have on your end.
I cant acknowledge some thing that does not exist. You have to prove it.
Thats the real harsh fact...
Originally posted by laurence82:
The law does not provide for it, hence i am right until the proper authority had said so.Simple. Not from you at the very least.
laurence,
Yes, the law does not provide for the banning of evangelism. So I don't see how you can still stubbornly insist you are right. Again this reeks of special pleading on yuor part.