Spirituality in the Workplace

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If all of his other friends were practicing homosexuals, I guess by default the non-practicing homosexual would be the best.

I missed that part, but I'm not sure what a non-practicing homosexual means. I never hear about non-practicing heterosexuals. I mean I practice when I'm not practicing. Know what I'm saying?

Originally posted by kirksey957
I mean I practice when I'm not practicing. Know what I'm saying?

We all do, even the most Prince-like among us. Know what I'm sayin'?

Typical, you hold your "born-again" fundamentalists friends to a different, weaker standard than the rest.

No idea what you mean.

Well, you can take all the credit if you want, but I've heard it all before. You are obviously taking your propaganda from your cult authority. Who knows what they call it in your cult: youth pastor, campus crusade for christ leader, young adults leader. Who knows maybe you go to one of those really scary churches where the pastor fills his sermons with this tripe.

Lol, what are you talking about? My opinions were formed from independant research. I have yet to go to church.

You know they didn't thank Dionysos, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Vishnu, or Ra, either. Get over yourself.

Well, you said the country was majority Christian, clearly it isn't.

Not all xtians are protrayed as wackos. The normal ones who practice their faith privately and treat others with respect are very rarely parodied. The xtians that are mocked are the crazy ones that preach hellfire on street corners, go to hell houses at Halloween, wear their self-righteousness like a badge, bitch when people don't use the words "Christmas break" to describe the weeks in late Dec and early Jan, or get pissed off when some one doesn't explicitly mention their deity when accepting an Oscar.

I treat you and others here with respect. I'm not quite sure how me disagreeing with your personal beliefs shows a lack of respect. Perhaps you're confusing me offending you with a lack of respect on my part. Different things offend different people.

I've told you repeatedly that I have read every word of the Bible front to back twice. Of course, I've read the more popular passages many times over. Which claims exactly should I be checking? I already told you on these forums that an xtian can also accept evolution. You were the one that had problems with that.

Well, have you checked the validity of the Ressurection story? Can the authors be trusted? Have you checked to see if prophecies really have come true? In other words, do you dismiss Christianity out of hand or do you do so out of popular opinion?

I only hope you don't get taken advantage of with that kind of blind trust.

That's unfortunate that you call it blind trust. Isn't it sad that you can't trust anyone like that?

Actually, it's much shorter, and it tends to upset the ignorant xtians who don't realize that the "x" stands for Christ. Check it out for yourself.
From the American Heritage Dictionary.

X
abbr.

1. Christ (Greek, Christos).
2. Christian.
3. or xexperimental.
4. extra.



I know what it stands for, but you clearly do so because the word Christ offends you, not for brevity's sake. I mean, I could say A for atheists, but that would be less concise.

No idea what you mean.

You basically invalidate the faith of millions of xtians (they are not "true Christians" remember?) simply because you do not see them following your interpretation of Christ's teachings. On the other hand you must know that born-agains also are seen disobeying Christ's teachings. However you do not pass the same judgement on this crowd. That is what I mean by a weaker standard. Like RBHILL says, "not perfect, just redeemed."

Lol, what are you talking about? My opinions were formed from independant research. I have yet to go to church.

If you say so. I won't call you a liar or a poser. Of course, Paul was a basically admits to being an imposter for Christ.

Well, you said the country was majority Christian, clearly it isn't.

It clearly is. I could give you a list of polls proving such. Only a very large minority however are members of the "born-again" cult and would thus meet your double standard.

I wonder, if the Hollywood industry is so bad, what the hell were you doing watching it? Don't you know that that is what they want? More eyes watching the ad's that way. Or did you skip the show and pick up this Oscar whining from those nutcases at Rapture Ready?

Well, have you checked the validity of the Ressurection story?

Yes, I think it takes a tremendous bit of mental contortionism and intellectual compromise to make the four accounts of the resurrection and the events proceeding fit into a sensible story. Of course, I'm sure you got Strobel's or McDowell's guide to hand-waving and question-begging to get you through.

Have you checked to see if prophecies really have come true?

Yes, many of them, especially, the ones from Daniel and Isaiah. I used these same tactics at one time remember. There are always two devices at work in those arguments: selection bias, only look at the ones you think have come to pass, the rest aren't false just unfulfilled; and ad hoc special pleading, you try to make what you know of history conform to the vague words and what doesn't fit you try to forget.

In other words, do you dismiss Christianity out of hand or do you do so out of popular opinion?

I have told you countless times that I rejected xtianity reluctantly after much intellectual and "spiritual" struggle. I can't believe it any more than I can believe that pigs fly in space. Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. If I were concerned with popular opinion, I wouldn't be atheistic.

That's unfortunate that you call it blind trust. Isn't it sad that you can't trust anyone like that?

You are implicitly admitting to having some type of "cult leaders" BTW.
I do trust people. I just don't trust people of such poor judgement.


I know what it stands for, but you clearly do so because the word Christ offends you, not for brevity's sake. I mean, I could say A for atheists, but that would be less concise.

Sure you do . . . now. Christ does not offend me. I've written it many times in previous posts. I've already told you why I write Christianity as xtianity.

BTW, you could write "A" for atheists, and that would be more concise.

You basically invalidate the faith of millions of xtians (they are not "true Christians" remember?) simply because you do not see them following your interpretation of Christ's teachings. On the other hand you must know that born-agains also are seen disobeying Christ's teachings. However you do not pass the same judgement on this crowd. That is what I mean by a weaker standard. Like RBHILL says, "not perfect, just redeemed."

I don't invalidate anything. The Word of God does. I mean, how can they claim to be a follow of Christ if they don't actually follow Him? And yes, born-agains sin, but we are repentant, because we believe in a just God, not a cosmic therapist.

If you say so. I won't call you a liar or a poser. Of course, Paul was a basically admits to being an imposter for Christ.

Paul was a basically...? Sorry, I don't understand. Though I will say I'm not lying or posing.

It clearly is. I could give you a list of polls proving such. Only a very large minority however are members of the "born-again" cult and would thus meet your double standard.

Since Jesus said you HAVE to be born-again to get into Heaven, I'm not sure how we are a cult...

I wonder, if the Hollywood industry is so bad, what the hell were you doing watching it? Don't you know that that is what they want? More eyes watching the ad's that way. Or did you skip the show and pick up this Oscar whining from those nutcases at Rapture Ready?

I only watched Chris Rock's first few minutes. And I heard from friends that they didn't thank God.

Yes, I think it takes a tremendous bit of mental contortionism and intellectual compromise to make the four accounts of the resurrection and the events proceeding fit into a sensible story. Of course, I'm sure you got Strobel's or McDowell's guide to hand-waving and question-begging to get you through.

Mental contortionism? I'm not that talented. Intellectual compromise? How so; I don't claim to know everything that is possible everywhere, so there's no need to compromise, merely to learn. I've read Strobel, among many others.

Yes, many of them, especially, the ones from Daniel and Isaiah. I used these same tactics at one time remember. There are always two devices at work in those arguments: selection bias, only look at the ones you think have come to pass, the rest aren't false just unfulfilled; and ad hoc special pleading, you try to make what you know of history conform to the vague words and what doesn't fit you try to forget.

What is vague about 'king from Grecia' and 'empire split into 4 parts after he dies'? What is vague about predicting when the Messiah would die? Your definition of vague is much different from mine. And which prophecies are unfulfilled? I'm totally lost.

I have told you countless times that I rejected xtianity reluctantly after much intellectual and "spiritual" struggle. I can't believe it any more than I can believe that pigs fly in space. Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. If I were concerned with popular opinion, I wouldn't be atheistic.

"Spiritual". Interesting. That implies that you think you really didn't have one. Which means you were never born-again. Wouldn't be much of a struggle then, more like a change of mind. When have pigs made the claim that they can fly in space? And that is rather easy to prove a falsity. Dude, do you live in the same country I do? I don't care about polls, walk up to someone and say Jesus Christ is Lord and see if they don't look at you like you're insane. A Christian wouldn't.

You are implicitly admitting to having some type of "cult leaders" BTW.
I do trust people. I just don't trust people of such poor judgement.

Where am I implying I have cult leaders? I'm implying I have friends and family. Why is it your opinion that we have poor judgement? Because that really is all it is. Opinion.

Sure you do . . . now. Christ does not offend me. I've written it many times in previous posts. I've already told you why I write Christianity as xtianity.

No, believe me I knew what X stood for before now. I see no reason why I'd lie about the matter.

BTW, you could write "A" for atheists, and that would be more concise.

con·cise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-ss)
adj.
Expressing much in few words; clear and succinct.

I use that definition for concise. "A" isn't as clear as Atheist.

I don't invalidate anything. The Word of God does. I mean, how can they claim to be a follow of Christ if they don't actually follow Him? And yes, born-agains sin, but we are repentant, because we believe in a just God, not a cosmic therapist.

Right. So now anyone who is not a member of your cult will recognize that you've basically admitted to my claim.


Paul was a basically...? Sorry, I don't understand. Though I will say I'm not lying or posing.

Well, once you've really read the book you put so much faith in, you'll know what I'm referring to.

Since Jesus said you HAVE to be born-again to get into Heaven, I'm not sure how we are a cult...


I was thinking of these 2 defintions. Both fit the bill.

a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

from Merriam - Webster

Mental contortionism? I'm not that talented. Intellectual compromise? How so; I don't claim to know everything that is possible everywhere, so there's no need to compromise, merely to learn. I've read Strobel, among many others.

The accounts in the four gospels of the resurrection and the proceeding events are so riddled with what we may call for now surface anamolies that you must come up with a ridiculous story to account for all the claims while not adding anything superfluous. Of course, this should be expected from material written half a century after the event by people who weren't even there!

Your definition of vague is much different from mine.
Gosh, and here I thought you spoke the English language.

"Spiritual". Interesting. That implies that you think you really didn't have one. Which means you were never born-again. Wouldn't be much of a struggle then, more like a change of mind.

This is like that other crap about admitting that Jesus was a real person. Rash stupidity. Obviously, at the time I was quite convinced that I had a spirit that it had been redeemed by Christ through his precious blood on the cross and his mighty resurrection which took the keys of hell from Satan. Now I do not believe those things. That's what happens when you emerge from a cult. You realize that what you thought was real was a bunch of crap. It's really very easy to understand. If you made half the effort understanding others as you do upholding your narrow view of the bible, you'd have gotten it.

Remember I was quite well-versed in your cult. You are clearly not well versed in reason or science. Try checking out the view from the other side.

When have pigs made the claim that they can fly in space?

Duh. PIGS IN SPACE!

Dude, do you live in the same country I do? I don't care about polls, walk up to someone and say Jesus Christ is Lord and see if they don't look at you like you're insane.

Study statistics sometime, then you'll care about polls. Walking up to some one and acting like a jackass is no way to get a decent observation. Better stick to literature. Actually, better step down to accounting.

I'm implying I have friends and family.

Not your atheist family I hope?

Why is it your opinion that we have poor judgement?

Hey just keep wearing those rose-colored glasses.

Opinion.

Brilliant!

Oh and by the way.
concise
1 : marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail
2 : cut short

Merriam-Webster

Oh yeah. I've gotten the book and am reading it. I think I still got the short end of the stick. It's almost 400 pages. You posted at infidels and ran like hell when they actually tore your arguments up. Oh well, your loss, and its an easy read and gets my mind of serious, meaningful studies.

Still, pretty disappointing so far. Hardly the "objective journalist" he feigns to be.

The way you eat this crap up. I guess we can all be thankful you picked up Strobel and not Mein Kampf.

Originally posted by Darfius
Homosexuals shouldn't ever be called queers.

Queer Theory is a growing academic field: one inhabited mostly by gays and lesbians, but also by some straight folks.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is bad information. Perhaps it is something you learned in church?

See http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/queertheory.html

Do you think that it would be appropriate to talk about a weekend of deviant sex at the work place. Some people might be into it, but others would be offended. Or perhaps if I were a pagan would it be okay to try and recruit others to take a part in my rites.

I used to work with a raving christian who talked about it non-stop. This was when I was in Canada. I wasn't used to this, as England is fairly secular. He even used to pray that his experiments worked (we worked in a research lab).
Anyway, god didn't help him - I got him sacked.

Originally posted by rwingett
Which, I'm sure, bores your co-workers even further.

Actually no, they like to talk about that stuff.

Originally posted by darvlay
At one time, I had a co-worker ask me if I was interested in having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We were both on the job with our shovels diggin a hole for some stiff's tombstone foundation when he sprang the question out of nowhere. I wasn't at all offended and I actually talked to him and made him feel special by saying I would think abou ...[text shortened]... ly inappropriate to even say Christmas during the holiday season, which I have never understood.

Now say if you had a little child of your own and she came home from going to Church with one of her friends and she accepted Chirst and she gave her testamony to you. And so she ask if you wanted to accept Christ what would you do? Would you lie to your own child and say maybe you would think about it.

But truly when someone is revealed the truth it will come across them some time again in their life time.

Originally posted by Chessteen16
Actually no, they like to talk about that stuff.

What an amazing coincidence given the few "true Christians" out there according to Darfius.

Originally posted by darvlay
Do you feel that the workplace is an appropriate place to witness or to speak about the teachings of Jesus Christ? Can anyone here give a testimony about witnessing to a co-worker or colleague and what the results were?

A workplace is as good a place as any to discuss one's faith. If however someone doesn't want to hear about your faith, there is no point harping on about it.