Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?

• BadzMaro

  11 Dec 11, 11:41

  Quote me all the bible verses that you want. I am not your ordinary pushover guy.

   

• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 11:42

  yeah winsomesea

  its not use quoting bible when they dont heed the words of the holy book

  save your breath

• BadzMaro

  11 Dec 11, 11:43

  Nice that you have noticed.

   

• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 11:44

  Originally posted by BadzMaro:

  Nice that you have noticed.

   

  
  hahahahaha

  thanks for agreeing you guys dont heed the words of your bible

   

• BadzMaro

  11 Dec 11, 11:45

  Sure.

  Thats exactly what u guys want. And I am giving it to you.

   

• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 11:46

  i know this for a fact long time ago

  not surprising

   

• BadzMaro

  11 Dec 11, 11:47

  Glad you noticed your participation.

• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 11:48

  rubbish talk

• winsomeea

  11 Dec 11, 12:02

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  yeah winsomesea

  its not use quoting bible when they dont heed the words of the holy book

  save your breath

  He rejects the words of His God, real bad!  It is a sin!  By rejecting the words of God he is quenching the Holy Spirit which is considered a sin.    This will lead him to hell.    No repentence, no doing will of God will not enter heaven.      

• BadzMaro

  11 Dec 11, 12:04

  Oh.. Now I am going to hell ? lol

  Okay... whatever you guys say man.

• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 12:04

  Originally posted by winsomeea:

  He rejects the words of His God, real bad!  It is a sin!  By rejecting the words of God he is quenching the Holy Spirit which is considered a sin.    This will lead him to hell.    No repentence, no doing will of God will not enter heaven.      

  
  oh wow, now i know

  

• BroInChrist

  11 Dec 11, 12:13

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  thats why i support banning of religious evangelism

  we must fight such people to preserve humanity and not be trodden on

  if we keep quiet, they think we are good to bully

  
  laurence, Last time sayiny this. If all your ranting here is about the right to talk about banning evangelism and that it is not unlawful to talk about it, then OK, I concede this point to yoo In fact this was already conceded earlier. So talking about banning evangelism is not unlawful, but banning evangelism is insofar as the law now stands.
• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 14:10

  You have not proven that banning evabngelism is unlawful, i think we got to the point its your pride and ego speaking now

• BroInChrist

  11 Dec 11, 15:02

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  You have not proven that banning evabngelism is unlawful, i think we got to the point its your pride and ego speaking now

  
  Sometimes you just have to discover for yourself how painful is it for you to kick against tho goads. Nothing I say would convince you since you stubbornly insist on being right even when black and white Constitution is thrown at you. Heck, even reasonable.atheist isn't on your side on this! Best for you to seek out some lawyer friends and ask them whether it is lawful to ban evangelism. But please don't ask them whether it is unlawful to TALK about banning evangelism, ask whether it is unlawful to ban evangelism right now. Report back a truthful answer please.
• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 15:14

  At this point, you have done nothing to prove that banning evangelism is unlawful, the Constitution did not explicityly define, neither was there a rightful process in courts or parliament to say so

  Is reasonable atheist the Court? Or Parliament? You are the one making such statement, please prove it right here right now..

• BroInChrist

  11 Dec 11, 15:20

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  At this point, you have done nothing to prove that banning evangelism is unlawful, the Constitution did not explicityly define, neither was there a rightful process in courts or parliament to say so

  Is reasonable atheist the Court? Or Parliament? You are the one making such statement, please prove it right here right now..

  
  Suffice to say that the voice if reason is not on your side. Go on, speak to any lawyer and report back please.
• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 15:20

  Originally posted by BroInChrist:

  
  Suffice to say that the voice if reason is not on your side. Go on, speak to any lawyer and report back please.

  
  Well, you go bring back evidence, dun make statements and expect people to clear up your mess

  Sheesh

• BroInChrist

  11 Dec 11, 15:29

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  Well, you go bring back evidence, dun make statements and expect people to clear up your mess

  Sheesh

  
  Article 15(1) is my proof that the law makes it lawful to propagate religion. You just have to live with it as a citizen of Singapore. You made the mess, not me. Even reasonable.atheist can tell you how screwed up your argument is. Nuff said.
• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 15:34

  yeah at the rate you go, why dont you continue to quote Articles 16, 17, 18

  because if you do not know how to interpret the law, and without the rightful process, you can stubbornly stick to any articles you like

   

• BroInChrist

  11 Dec 11, 18:36

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  yeah at the rate you go, why dont you continue to quote Articles 16, 17, 18

  because if you do not know how to interpret the law, and without the rightful process, you can stubbornly stick to any articles you like

   

  
  I will be more than happy to throw the entire Law at you, but the relevant one is Article 15(1). If you think your interpretation is right, then go seek a lawyer to confirm it for yourself as it seems that you are not going to buy anything I said. You even turn a deaf ear to what reasonable.atheist said.
• laurence82

  11 Dec 11, 23:33

  Originally posted by BroInChrist:

  
  I will be more than happy to throw the entire Law at you, but the relevant one is Article 15(1). If you think your interpretation is right, then go seek a lawyer to confirm it for yourself as it seems that you are not going to buy anything I said. You even turn a deaf ear to what reasonable.atheist said.

  
  yeah u will be happy to throw the entire law even if you rubbishly inteprete

  so, now must go lawyer? not oxford meh?

  after lawyer then what? carpenter?

  does this mean all along you have nothing to back u up???

• winsomeea

  11 Dec 11, 23:35

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  yeah u will be happy to throw the entire law even if you rubbishly inteprete

  so, now must go lawyer? not oxford meh?

  after lawyer then what? carpenter?

  does this mean all along you have nothing to back u up???

  he and the rest of the christian trolls come here for the main purpose of trolling.    They are not able to reply to decent topics and questions.    

• BroInChrist

  12 Dec 11, 00:38

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  yeah u will be happy to throw the entire law even if you rubbishly inteprete

  so, now must go lawyer? not oxford meh?

  after lawyer then what? carpenter?

  does this mean all along you have nothing to back u up???

  
  Why think so far? Just start with your lawyer friends can already. And why patronise me about back up when you simply don't give two hoots about it anyway? Article 15(1) so clear cut you also disregard.
• laurence82

  12 Dec 11, 01:01

  Originally posted by BroInChrist:

  
  Why think so far? Just start with your lawyer friends can already. And why patronise me about back up when you simply don't give two hoots about it anyway? Article 15(1) so clear cut you also disregard.

  
  Articles 15 werent clear cut, otherwise the definition of propagation would be defined by now

  It was Oxford, now lawyer, knowing you have twisted the arguments and have skipped from one reference to the other, the ball is in your court to support your statements

   

• laurence82

  12 Dec 11, 01:04

  Originally posted by winsomeea:

  he and the rest of the christian trolls come here for the main purpose of trolling.    They are not able to reply to decent topics and questions.    

  
  to me its relatively easy to catch such troll

  whatever it takes, always remain clear and focused on your original point/question

  you can see that it will frustrate BIC's intention to skip and divert his argument that he has nothing else to do but to take cheap personal shots at you