Piorokrat wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Zsarnok" <zsar@nok.earth.link.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:MuBrb.19053$Oo4.13701@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Piorokrat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uzytkownik "Zsarnok" <zsar@nok.earth.link.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>news:Mcyrb.18643$Oo4.17634@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure I agree with you. I doubt they would have denied
>>>
>>>evangelising
>>>
>>>
>>>>>when we are commanded to evangelise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The commands you follow do not override other people's rights. Once
>>>>your offer is rejected the courteous thing would be to leave. Again.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure you've got a right not to agree with me.
>>>
>>>I'll even agree you've got a right to sling me out, if you take a vote
>
> and
>
>>>the majority say I should leave, then I'll leave.
>>>I'm a big fan of democracy.
>>>
>>
>>Davey?
>
> That's me.
>
What does Piorokrat mean?
>
>>>>>>>We nevertheless like to do it in a reasoned way, dealing with and
>>>>>
>>>>>reacting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>to the points of faith in other people's world views.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By and large, few if any here would wish to here your
>>>>>>evangelizing, no matter what form it takes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I can well imagine that. "The carnal mind is enmity against God. It is
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>subject to the laws of God, nor indeed can it be" But if we only took
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>message to people who have already lost their carnal minds and gained
>>>
>>>new
>>>
>>>
>>>>>minds and had their stoney heart taken out and given a new heart, then
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>
>>>>>sort of evangelists would we be???
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Saving people when they don't want it may be following your God's law.
>>>>It is however soliciting against peoples wishes and against the law.
>>>>It's also rude.
>>>
>>>
>>>I know. I do try to be the David Niven type courteous English gentleman,
>
> but
>
>>>when I see people hurtling into the pit it seems a bit tough not to put
>
> my
>
>>>hand out just because we haven't been properly introduced.
>>>
>>
>>In this case you were introduced.
>
>
> It would have been rude not to introduce our Saviour, then.
>
See you carry him with you (not looking for an insulting term, I don't
know how you call it), and we see someone talking to his imaginary
friend. I'll sit in the other chair if it makes you more comfortable,
but I won't talk to air as if it's a person, much less a god.
>
>>>>>>>By propounding your views as we propounded ours, you had all the
>
> chance
>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>make converts of us, humanly speaking, as we had to make converts of
>>>>>
>>>>>you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, therein lies a difference in parsdigms, Davey. Most pagans do
>>>>>>not wish to make "converts" of you lot and mainly would do as they've
>>>>>>done; request that you cease and desist. These requests have ranged
>>>>>
>>>>>>from polite to more, shall we say, direct? All have been disregared
>
> by
>
>>>>>>you and your fellow missionaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not true. Ariaan has bid you farewell, Jason seems to be disengaging.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well he said he was leaving and is still posting here. So did you. Is
>>>>it ok with your God to lie to us because we have "carnal mind(s)"?
>>>>Since we don't follow your God we are less than human, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>>I never said I was leaving. My first indication of leaving has been my
>
> offer
>
>>>to leave if voted off by a majority.
>>>In this very handicrafted poste.
>>>Please show me where I said I was leaving before that.
>>>
>>
>>I was responding to Davey. But I checked and I was wrong, Ariaan said
>>goodbye. My mistake, sorry.
>
>
>
> Okay, no worries. For the avoidance of confusion, I have to use this
> 'piorokrat' account for replies when I'm reading off the afud group, because
> only onet.pl carries it in Poland, and they needed an account set up with
> them in order to let me use the service.
>
> This is the same person as posts under the name 'Uncle Davey' when posting
> over the tpnet groups, I also sign off the same way.
>
I got that at the end there. Thank you though for clearing it up.
>
>>>>>>>I say 'humanly speaking', because all true conversion is only done by
>>>>>
>>>>>God
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>anyway, and we only plant seeds, we don't make them germinate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then wheel your "g-d" in here and let 'im try, why does 'he' need
>>>>>>willing missionaries to do 'his' dirty work?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, He doesn't. But we are priveledged to be offered a small role
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>God's calling in His kingdom.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then please, stay within his kingdom and only travel amoung those who
>>>>welcome you.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's called 'preaching to the converted' and is the religious
>
> equivalent
>
>>>of tilting at windmills.
>>>
>>
>>Tilting at windmills is an impossible or useless task, not a redundant
>>one. There are those yet not converted who would welcome you. Look
>
> harder.
>
> That's a good point.
>
Thanks.
>
>>>>>>>Nevertheless, it has disturbed some of my brethren, (not myself I
>
> have
>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>say, as I am so wicked by nature I am past being shocked by
>
> anything),
>
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there has been a stream of blasphemy and crudity from some
>>>
>>>participants,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this wasn't what they had in mind when they came here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The responses have been precisely-gaged to suit specific
>>>>>>instances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are saying you didn't want to be evangelised, and at the same
>
> time
>
>>>>>you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>are calling Jason chicken for announcing a retirement from the
>
> debate,
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>sure fire way of making someone go the distance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you fail to comprehend what was stated, Davey.
>>>>>>Jason was berated for starting a cross-posted incursion
>>>>>>into a.r.w. and then a 'brave exit speech' which equates
>>>>>>to buggering-off after he didn't like the response to this.
>>>>>>At no point in the past has he indicated that he is able to
>>>>>>participate in a "debate", (which is not demonstrated by
>>>>>>his various announced claims but, by participating in them).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nevertheless, he is a very fine debater. If you disregard for one
>
> moment
>
>>>>>your distaste for his credo, look at the website and assess the high
>>>
>>>quality
>>>
>>>
>>>>>of some of the debating in their. there are even publicised phone
>>>
>>>debates he
>>>
>>>
>>>>>has had.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We've had personal contact. Prepared and carefully chosen presentations
>>>>may look good, but in direct contact he's not that impressive.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll be my own judge of that, since I hope to meet him.
>>>I won't say on usenet anyway whatever I find out by meeting him, as I
>>>consider that the number one unethical thing you can do on Usenet.
>>>This is the whole background to why I left soc.singles last January and
>
> my
>
>>>group got set up for me by those who wanted to keep reading my stuff.
>>>In that group, betrayal of hospitality is seen as a cardinal virtue by
>
> the
>
>>>ruling militia.
>>>
>>
>>Enjoy the visit. Life's tough sometimes.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>>>>>>So I have a couple of questions for you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Do you want us to stay or go? (Because you gave a mixed message
>>>>>
>>>>>above)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stay if wished. Do not attempt to dictate posting parameters
>>>>>>to an unmoderated NG to which you lot are cross-posting _To_.
>>>>>>Additionally, whining about the nature of the replies received to
>>>>>>various nonsense you post merely makes you look petulant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I haven't done it. Between you and me I'm not a great big fan of
>>>>>netiquette, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The overly formalized little hangups of people who got here first can be
>>>>irritating. Courtesy, however, is not picky or tacky or that hard to
>>>
>>>show.
>>>
>>>All I can repeat is that netiquette is not my obsession. I think there
>
> are
>
>>>important ethical concerns where usenet borders on real life, but other
>
> than
>
>>>that I have to say that this is primarily an entertainment medium.
>>>
>>
>>Some are here to exchange ideas and socialize as well.
>
>
> I know personally three couples who met on Usenet and got married, and now
> poste as a husband and wife team. Anything like that happened on your group?
>
I don't meet off line, but I know there are couples who post here, and
friendships have been made. Cantankerous as this group may be, I know.
>
>>>>>>>2. Are you aware of what the message is that we are preaching?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, and there is no need for its repetition - by either you or I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmmmmn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You offered, we rejected. You can stay and play. If you feel too
>>>>strongly about it to contain yourself, then find a more receptive
>>>
>>>audience.
>>>
>>>Well, unless voted off by a majority, I will stay in all likelihood.
>>>
>>
>>Lovely condition to put before an unmoderated group. Like saying you'll
>>pay taxes when the IRS switches to Greek currency.
>
>
> Heh heh heh. No I mean it. We could say that voters need to have posted say
> ten times to arw before today for their vote to count, and for their last
> post to arw not to be more than a month old.
>
It's an idea, but the fluidity of NGs makes the whole thing hard. And
who gets to do the tedious counting. Mostly we've said 'stop
preaching', not 'go'. Now I did say 'go' if you can't stop preaching.
But the conditions there are fairly cleanly laid out. We really aren't
hostile, we're just not inclined to accept insults. The difference is
not insignificant but often missed.
> At risk of being accused of nitpicking I should mention that Greece is in
> the Eurozone, by the way.
>
I don't keep track of who's in and whose out. But what with The Former
Yugoslavian State of Macedonia (close if not accurate) I should have
remembered.
>
>>>>>>>Could you put
>>>>>>>the Christian gospel in your own words for me, so that I can see
>>>
>>>whether
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>are rejecting what we are actually trying to say or only what you
>
> think
>
>>>>>we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>are trying to say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I iterate above, there is no need. Your "message" is
>>>>>>summarily rejected by this poster. Is that clear enough, Davey?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's clear that when I asked you to summarise what our message was, you
>>>>>didn't do it.
>>>>>There's still a risk in my mind that you don't know what you're
>>>
>>>rejecting.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perfect understanding is not required for a thoughtful rejection.
>>>>That's assuming of course that your offer is all that complicated, which
>>>>to me it isn't. It's just awful is all.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's up to you.
>>
>>That's it! That's what I've been saying! See, you can get it.
>>Congratulations.
>
>
> I've known that all along, though.
>
Then your preaching was being rude and shame on you.
>
>>>No one can force you into accepting Christ as your personal saviour.
>>>
>>
>>True.
>>
>>>>>>>3. Is your first name Timothy and do you come from the UK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, the first name is Trevor and I come from another land.
>>>>>>Are you actually posting from Warsaw, Davey?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am, Trevor.
>>>>>Right from the heart of Warsaw.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Davey, with a good Polish beer in hand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can't you save the Catholics, Davey? There's already common ground.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I can't save anybody, but we did have three newcomers who were catholics
>
> in
>
>>>Church today.
>>>
>>
>>Good for you.
>
>
> The sermon they heard will have given them a wake-up call.
>
>
>>>I looked up your name in a Hungarian dictionary but I couldn't find it
>
> as a
>
>>>word.
>>>
>>>I am curious as to the origin. It sounds like either the Slavic root for
>>>'grain' or the root for 'heat', but the spelling is rather Hungarian,
>
> than
>
>>>Slavic...
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>Uncle Davey
>>>
>>
>>Yes it is Hungarian. BTW, 4 languages is impressive.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>>The info came up as a full page and doesn't cut and paste to text.
>>Besides, I thought you'd be amused:
>>
>>
>
> http://dict.sztaki.hu/dict_search.php?L=HUN%3AENG%3AEngHunDict&O=ENG&flash=&E=1&sid=6629c0b590d070027bc6f32718e0ccfc&in_form=1&W=zsarnok&M=2&P=0&C=1&A=0&T=1&F=0
>
> You might like to look at www.tinyurl.com for moments like this. That having
> been said I had no difficulty retrieving it. Thank you for that.
> I can't believe a word like that wasn't in my dictionary. I wonder what the
> etymology is.
>
Hungarians can be painfully polite. They often go around the stronger
phrases. But they know them.
>
>>You know what to do if the browser cut the link, I'm sure.
>>
>>What can I say? I was called this by someone I had mildly perturbed.
>>
>
>
> Strangely enough I started to be called 'Davey' when an atheist friend used
> that on me, teasing me for evangelising. He said I was like the character
> 'davey'
> on some children's Christian programme in America. Before that I had been
> posting under my full name.
>
Oh Gads! You don't know how many times I wished the donkey would nail
that little clay boy. Sorry, but that is funny.
>
>>Zsarnok (Wear it proudly and with a grin.)
>
>
> But other than that, you're not Hungarian at all?
> George Mikes claimed that everyone is a little bit Hungarian.
>
> Szia.
>
> Uncle Davey
>
George is Hungarian, eh? <g> For a small country you can't go anywhere
without finding some group of them. A bit odd, that. Yes Hungarians
are in my ancestry. The appelation came from a loving family member.
Natch.
Zsarnok
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 |
|