NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I hope I'm the very first to answer your question.

Everything.

I'm a Christian, but I have always been annoyed by people who try to make you switch churches all the time. Anyway, a lot of people here are probably annoyed because they just don't want to get converted to Christianity.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.

I'm not bothered but a lot of ppl I know don't like the whole 'you don't believe in Jesus you burn in Hell' schpiel. (I can refute this w/text from the Bible but I won't go into it now)

depends on how its done.

when someone requests it, its fine

if its done without request its the religious equivalent of spam.

Two reasons.

1 Nobody likes a sales pitch. Especially when they're happy with their own version of the product, or when they're convinced the product sucks.

2 Some people (like me) think the world is better off without religion, and think you're actually making the world a worse place by spreading your religion around.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.

isn't a choice involved, though?

I'm not bothered but a lot of ppl I know don't like the whole 'you don't believe in Jesus you burn in Hell' schpiel. (I can refute this w/text from the Bible but I won't go into it now)

According to the Bible:

it is biblical that the people are judged according to their beliefs (mainly)... you know the verses (i don't feel like pulling all the biblical proof of hell for non-believers...). Jesus was speaking. And according to Jesus, if you do not follow him, you are lost.

"prolythising" = proselytising?

Anyway, proselytising is annoying whatever religion it is. Christianity does it the most, so it's the one you get most annoyed by.

When someone argues for something that evidence cleary refutes, people get mad. Everyone is like this.

This goes for religion. There is no evidence pointing to religion, it is just pure belief. When people try to convince others into believing their religion they will get mad as it is like talking to someone who ignores all evidence.

isn't a choice involved, though?

Not believing is really not that labour intensive. Just like not believing in gnomes doesn't really take any sort of action.

If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?
1) Evangelism almost always comes with a threat. Believe or go to hell.
2) Usually, evangelists are not easily put off. They're incredibly persistent. They're worse than used car salesmen.

isn't a choice involved, though?
No. Atheists do not choose to believe or disbelieve in god. They simply don't believe it. Let me give you an example. Pretend that I said that Hitler was a great humanitarian. You know a lot about Hitler, and that statement runs counter to everything you know about him. So, you don't believe it. Do you think there is any way in which you could *choose* to believe it?

Here's my bit on this. I believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there is not. You really cannot prove this either way. Just like with all(OK, most) things, the way we look at the world is based on theory. The Theory of Christianity, or The Theory of Atheism. Just like The Theory of Gravity. Admit it, all of you, For all you know, the Earth is held up by an elephant on the back of a turtle.(speaking metiphorically)

Why you should be Christian runs the same as Why evolution is right. Both are theoretical arguments. To both sides, I say this. Stop being so cocky. You have no clue what is the right answer! Atheists will cite science at this point, that is good enough for them. That is fine with me. Believe as you will. Christians will cite the bible. Fine, have a blast. Just stop taking it so seriously. No one is going to come to your house and force you to be Christian/Atheist. State your peice, read the other argument, and arrive at your decision. Leave the arrogance at the door, please.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.

maybe you didn't but i was struck blind by atheism on the road to damascus

I hope I'm the very first to answer your question.

Everything.
Why? I'm an unrepentant atheist as you know, but I think Christians should have the right to spread their mythology.

I'm getting seriously annoyed with the NS left-wing's increasingly blantant anti-Christianity. It's even going beyond opposition governments legislating the Bible into law; many people seem to have a problem with Christians being allowed to express their beliefs publicly at all. :(

When someone argues for something that evidence cleary refutes, people get mad. Everyone is like this.

This goes for religion. There is no evidence pointing to religion, it is just pure belief. When people try to convince others into believing their religion they will get mad as it is like talking to someone who ignores all evidence.
The existence of God cannot be proven; nor can it be disproven.

Anyway, proselytising is annoying whatever religion it is. Christianity does it the most, so it's the one you get most annoyed by.
Not on topic, but what's your website all about? Those are some nice pictures, but I don't understand Swedish.

Here's my bit on this. I believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there is not.
You're thinking of antitheists. Atheists neither acknowledge nor disbelieve in the existence of God. Antitheists have faith in the idea that there is no God.

In my Faith, proselytising is taboo. Seeing other people engage in it provokes in me the same reaction as I would to someone wearing a swatika to a synagogue. It's the person's own choice, and they are free to express their love for their beliefs, but its in really bad taste, and most of the time the people being preached to don't want to hear it. Your Faith is your business, not mine. Lets try to keep it that way please.

It isn't fair that the Atheists are free to disparage Christianity, but then again, it isn't fair for the Evangelical Christians feel they should be allowed every other relgion except their own. This is a two way street you're travelling on. Be careful not to hit anyone else, respect the other traffic and obey the laws of the road

I'm getting seriously annoyed with the NS left-wing's increasingly blantant anti-Christianity. It's even going beyond opposition governments legislating the Bible into law; many people seem to have a problem with Christians being allowed to express their beliefs publicly at all. :(

Oh, the irony of being annoyed with people using freedom of speech to criticise what others do with the same freedom of speech. :rolleyes:

maybe you didn't but i was struck blind by atheism on the road to damascus

You sure it wasn't just a side-effect of masturbation?

Here's my bit on this. I believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there is not. You really cannot prove this either way.
true

however one is extremely more likely than the other

sure, i dont mind saying that there is a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000 that god exists. i guess within the random size and age of the universe that makes it kind of likely even. but not enough for me to bet on it at this time.

Why? I'm an unrepentant atheist as you know, but I think Christians should have the right to spread their mythology.

I'm getting seriously annoyed with the NS left-wing's increasingly blantant anti-Christianity. It's even going beyond opposition governments legislating the Bible into law; many people seem to have a problem with Christians being allowed to express their beliefs publicly at all. :(
I think it was put best on the last page...

Unsolicited evangelism is like religious spam, whether it's Christians, Buddhists, and hey, I'll even include atheists. You'll notice I never get into threads declaring one or another 'religion' to be a good choice over the others.

Sure, spread your mythology, but don't try to base your arguments on it unless you are prepared to DEFEND that mythology with facts.

I don't want to hear about other people's religions, unless I want to hear about other people's religions:) So, if you bring it up, I'll ignore it. If you push it, I'll tell you to back off. If you continue, I get annoyed. Unless of course, the whole thread happens to be ABOUT your religion...then I realise I'm being an ass, and I leave!

Not on topic, but what's your website all about? Those are some nice pictures, but I don't understand Swedish.

All is explained here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8779585&postcount=6

Not terribly exciting, I'm afraid.

Oh, the irony of being annoyed with people using freedom of speech to criticise what others do with the same freedom of speech. :rolleyes:
I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to express anti-Christian, anti-freedom of speech views. I just really disagree with them.

It wouldn't be as bad if they applied it to all religions, but the people I'm talking about have it out most for Christians.

I think it was put best on the last page...

Unsolicited evangelism is like religious spam, whether it's Christians, Buddhists, and hey, I'll even include atheists. You'll notice I never get into threads declaring one or another 'religion' to be a good choice over the others.
The only problem with spam is the volume of it. I don't have a problem with Christians coming up to me to convert me. It doesn't happen much anyway.

I'm for total freedom of speech, and it annoys me when people want to ban it for some group or another. I also don't think people should have to defend their BS with facts, though it does help their case.

Aren't we liberals supposed to stand for tolerance anyway? How about we apply that across the board, hmmm?

I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to express anti-Christian, anti-freedom of speech views. I just really disagree with them.

Yeah, well, tough noogies, I suppose. ;)

It wouldn't be as bad if they applied it to all religions, but the people I'm talking about have it out most for Christians.

That's because Christianity is the big religion in the West. Although, I have seen a lot of criticism of Islam and Wicca on these forums as well.

Christ was a good man, my god was he a good guy. I love your Christ but I hate your Christians (you'll get a cookie if you tell me who's quote that is). Christians, especially those who go to Church, disgust me. Why would you EVER need to go to church? Church is nothing more than a business that doesn't get taxed. You don't need church to find God, all you need is the Bible.

I don't care if Christians practice their faith in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start pressing this faith on me, it ticks me off.

Don't you think people have it out for Christianity most because of the Evangelical conversion-spamming? Recently in Glasgow there've been lots of "Gouranga" people around trying to get random passers by to donate cash, and that's provoked quite a lot of ridicule against them. People just get annoyed by being bullied into things.

I also don't think people should have to defend their BS with facts, though it does help their case.
I disagree. People should be able to defend their BS with facts, and should be embarassed for themselves if they can't. It's this lack of standards that opens the door to a whole lot of reprehensible nonsense, like Heaven's Gate or Aum Shinrikyo.

Ghandi, I believe, Bryle

I agree that a distinction should be made between methods of evangelizing.

If a friend at works says, "Yeah, I quit smoking with the help of God in my life", and lets me decide whether to say "to each his own" or "tell me more", thats cool

If a friend puts a Chick tract in my mailbox, thats Spam. If they say "believe or suffer eternal torture arranged for in advance by the loving God who made you, knowing in advance whether you would believe or not, but creating you anyway to be tortured, but if you'll just do what I tell you, you can be spared", thats worse than spam, its using terror to demand obedience.

If a Mormon or somebody knocks on my door and I say no thanks, and they say, "no problem, have a nice day", I don't mind that kind of thing.

People with a microphone and set of large speakers proclaiming your descent into the fiery pit if you don't repent annoy me a lot. If you can make a decision whether or not to hear what they have to say that's fine, but having it forced on you whether you want to hear or not frustrates me.

Christ was a good man, my god was he a good guy. I love your Christ but I hate your Christians (you'll get a cookie if you tell me who's quote that is).
It's a mangling of a Gandhi quote. He said that modern Christians were not Christ-like, but he certainly didn't say he hated them.

Christians, especially those who go to Church, disgust me. Why would you EVER need to go to church? Church is nothing more than a business that doesn't get taxed. You don't need church to find God, all you need is the Bible.
I take it you are a Protestant then? ;)

Proselytizing rubs sensitive people the wrong way on many aspects. The "Convert or Burn in Hell" preachings aren't a nice start, apart from being sanctimonious, patronizing and condescending.

But what really irks the sensitive people is how some Missionaries working in impoverished and/or wartorn countries (especially Muslim countries) overtly or implicitly attach Relief Aid on the condition of conversion to Christianity. Exactly like how Jacob screwed Esau out of his birthright with the stew. In the end Jacob gets blessed by God, Esau gets jack shit.

You can't ignore them Neo Cannen, do you have any idea how persistent they are? Just leave me the hell alone!

The primary thing wrong with Christian "evangelism" and "proselytizing" as they are called in many places in America today, is that it's not Biblical and borders on being unChristian.

The Bible plainly states in many, many places ( I can look some of them up for you if you're interested ) that Christians are to "so live their lives among men" that those who see their "good works" and "gentle manner" will want to glorify the Father. This doesn't sound to me like standing on a streetcorner handing out tracts that someone else wrote, nor does it sound to me like badering your "neighbor" to "convert."

As usual, many so called "fundamentalists" have it exactly backwards: the works come first, then the desire among others to hear about God. This places the burden for being a witness for God squarely where it belongs: on your relationship with God first.

A friend of mine from Arkansas put it quite succinctly:

"I admire that guy Christ, but man - his fanclub really pisses me off".

No-one likes an attention whore.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I'm going to make it as simple for you as I can, Neo.

Just because YOU believe in your 'god', that doesn't make it true.

Just ebcause your 'holy book' says to spread the word... doesn't make THAT true, either.

Nobody has a problem with Christians practising their faith (whether it be true or false)... what they DO disagree with, is you trying to convince OTHER people that THEIR belief is wrong.

That's what it comes down to - you get all kinds of bent out of shape if an Atheist (for example) tells you that the Bible is a fairytale... and yet you happily 'correct' other people's spiritual choices.

It is hypocrisy.... and that is rarely a popular trait.

The primary thing wrong with Christian "evangelism" and "proselytizing" as they are called in many places in America today, is that it's not Biblical and borders on being unChristian.

The Bible plainly states in many, many places ( I can look some of them up for you if you're interested ) that Christians are to "so live their lives among men" that those who see their "good works" and "gentle manner" will want to glorify the Father. This doesn't sound to me like standing on a streetcorner handing out tracts that someone else wrote, nor does it sound to me like badering your "neighbor" to "convert."

As usual, many so called "fundamentalists" have it exactly backwards: the works come first, then the desire among others to hear about God. This places the burden for being a witness for God squarely where it belongs: on your relationship with God first.

Agreed... in fact, while the text does recommend bearing testament... I believe the Bible also teaches that the Christians should be 'separate' from 'other men'. A fact which somewhat implies that they should leave others the hell alone.

Well one example of why not to like them.

I remember one of the "faithful" years ago.

My mom was diagnosed to have MS. It was mentioned and she said it was because mom was an agnostic.

Hmmmm become a Christian or get punished with diseases......

Christ was a good man, my god was he a good guy. I love your Christ but I hate your Christians (you'll get a cookie if you tell me who's quote that is). Christians, especially those who go to Church, disgust me. Why would you EVER need to go to church? Church is nothing more than a business that doesn't get taxed. You don't need church to find God, all you need is the Bible.

I don't care if Christians practice their faith in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start pressing this faith on me, it ticks me off.

Church is a place where a Christian can find comfort and friendship in the community of believers. You can exist outside of a church as a Christian, but having that building and that group of people is a very tangible thing which people can grab on to and get at least a basic understanding of Christianity. I don't say that organized religion is the only way - that leads to denominational divisions over when someone ought to be baptized and with how much water - but it is still a valid religious practice. If a person needs that framework, they should be able to have it without having to face the judgement of any believer (of anything, not just Christianity) who chooses a more personal path.

Agreed... in fact, while the text does recommend bearing testament... I believe the Bible also teaches that the Christians should be 'separate' from 'other men'. A fact which somewhat implies that they should leave others the hell alone.
Most Bible commentators agree that "separation" is not a physical separation so much as it is a "separation of behavior" and "holiness." However, I like your interpretation too. :D

I just love it when the local fundamentalists come a'callin! Hehehe! By the time they leave, usually in a huff, they're so confused about what the Bible really teaches that I'm sure they have to have several "indoctrination sessions" with their pastors! :D

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

that is because christians are illogical and their ideas and beliefs aren't true. i'm not at all against them trying to force their opinion, jsut that they're trying to force the wronge opinion. they should be tortured.

Well one example of why not to like them.

I remember one of the "faithful" years ago.

My mom was diagnosed to have MS. It was mentioned and she said it was because mom was an agnostic.

Hmmmm become a Christian or get punished with diseases......

boy this is a great thing to be quoted apperantly if there is a god he/she isn't very forgiving however your mom is wrong because its not becuse she is agnostic its because a virus or cold got into her system
and again its not because she is aganostic because i am atheist and very so.. and i am 34 and i very very rarely get sick so... theres your answer

Not trying to flame anyone, just correcting some mistaken points of view here.

1. God gives you a choice in whether you want to go to heaven, or to hell. If you don't want God on earth, than you sure as hell don't want him in heaven. It's your choice. Try reading C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce", it gives you an excellent insight into the whole heaven/hell philosophy.

2. One of Jesus' last commandments was "to go make disciples of all nations". So it's kind of a perogative for christians to try to convert others.

3. There's no way you can disprove God with facts just as there is no way to prove he exists with facts. It all depends on what you "believe".

4. Jesus also said that Christians would be persecuted as long as they believed in him. In this day and age more christians are killed for their faith than ever before, it even exceeds the time of the Romans. So, Christians shouldn't get all mad about being put down, in fact you should expect it and embrace it.

That's all for now.

Well one example of why not to like them.

I remember one of the "faithful" years ago.

My mom was diagnosed to have MS. It was mentioned and she said it was because mom was an agnostic.

Hmmmm become a Christian or get punished with diseases......
That's very easy to dispute: "God causes his rain to fall upon the just as well as upon the unjust." Translation: bad things happen to good people too.

That's very easy to dispute: "God causes his rain to fall upon the just as well as upon the unjust." Translation: bad things happen to good people too.

Oh I know.

I am just saying it doesn't help the cause when you have numnuts runing around saying things like that.

Most Bible commentators agree that "separation" is not a physical separation so much as it is a "separation of behavior" and "holiness." However, I like your interpretation too. :D

I just love it when the local fundamentalists come a'callin! Hehehe! By the time they leave, usually in a huff, they're so confused about what the Bible really teaches that I'm sure they have to have several "indoctrination sessions" with their pastors! :D

Well, perhaps the line refers to spiritual separation... but, in addition to the reference to 'render unto Caesar...' - which, I feel, clearly advocates separation of church and state - it certainly seems that one of the Bible 'truths' is that the Christian should leave his non-Christian neighbours in peace.

Or, maybe I just read it that way because MY neighbours are evangelical thugs....

I am an agnostic-atheist. Anybody who pushes their beliefs on others, even if I agree with their beliefs, is doing something I consider wrong.

Not trying to flame anyone, just correcting some mistaken points of view here.

1. God give you a choice in whether you want to go to heaven, or to hell. If you don't want God on earth, than you sure as hell don't want him in heaven. It's your choice. Try reading C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce", it gives you an excellent insight into the whole heaven/hell philosophy.

2. One of Jesus' last commandments was "to go make disciples of all nations". So it's kind of a perogative for christians to try to convert others.

3. There's no way you can disprove God with facts just as there is no way to prove he exists with facts. It all depends on what you "believe".

That's all for now.
1. Although I admire C. S. Lewis for his insights, I have never read anything by him which indicates that "all who don't believe the way fundamentalist Christians believe are going to hell." The derivation of the term "hell" is very interesting. Seems the Greek for "hell" is the word "gehenna," which refers to a location in what is now Israel. It was a massive graveyard where the bodies of the poor, the diseased and those considered "outside the Jewish faith" were buried. Sometimes the gravediggers didn't bother with digging very deep graves and the stench was somewhat overpowering. Legends persist to this day that the spot is cursed and haunted. Thus the question of "hell" might refer to nothing more or less than a "cursed and haunted graveyard of the offcasts of society." Interesting, yes? :)

2. The scripture you quote was given by Jesus to his Apostles. He was encouraging them to "spread the good news" about the coming of the Messiah to members of the Jewish communities around the Mediterranian basin. It was only later, after Jesus' death, that Paul convinced Peter ( who was most reluctant ) to even attempt to convert "goyim" ( gentiles ... those not of the Jewish faith ). Nowhere in the Bible, that I'm aware of did Jesus give people instructions on how to make these conversions, leaving that to other passages of scripture, one of which I quoted earlier: "So live your lives among men that they will want to praise your Father who is in heaven."

3. This is true, which is why I will seldom involve myself in debates of that nature. Faith IS a matter of belief and reason only applies after one believes.

Simply put, the problem isn't with Christianity or Muslims, or Budda or whoever, the problem is with all the people who worship their respective Gods. Religion was created by man, and man it fundementally flawed to the core. So if you think you're right, if you believe you're right, and that you're religion is right, you're way, way off. Hopefully one day you people will end the rediculous religious war that your predecessors started, get your own idea on spirtuality, and control your ideas, and not let them control you. Oh yeah by the way I do believe God exists, but not in the confines of the religious nonsense you've all created.

Well, perhaps the line refers to spiritual separation... but, in addition to the reference to 'render unto Caesar...' - which, I feel, clearly advocates separation of church and state - it certainly seems that one of the Bible 'truths' is that the Christian should leave his non-Christian neighbours in peace.

Or, maybe I just read it that way because MY neighbours are evangelical thugs....
"Whenever possible, strive to be at peace with all men."

Simply put, the problem isn't with Christianity or Muslims, or Budda or whoever, the problem is with all the people who worship their respective Gods. Religion was created by man, and man it fundementally flawed to the core. So if you think you're right, if you believe you're right, and that you're religion is right, you're way, way off. Hopefully one day you people will end the rediculous religious war that your predecessors started, get your own idea on spirtuality, and control your ideas, and not let them control you. Oh yeah by the way I do believe God exists, but not in the confines of the religious nonsense you've all created.
Fundamentalists do not like it when I tell them that "God is much, much bigger than your faith can even begin to express. Please do not try to put God in a box of your own divising."

1. God gives you a choice in whether you want to go to heaven, or to hell. If you don't want God on earth, than you sure as hell don't want him in heaven. It's your choice. Try reading C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce", it gives you an excellent insight into the whole heaven/hell philosophy.

Well, Douglas Adams is supposedly in "hell", so that seems favorable right now. I could use another Hitchhiker book.


2. One of Jesus' last commandments was "to go make disciples of all nations". So it's kind of a perogative for christians to try to convert others.
I'm pretty sure there's Christians in every country by now. At least a couple. Job's done.

i don't seem to have the right argument right now... I'll come back later.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ.

That actually surprises you? I'll give you a little hint, it has something to do with adults, who pay their own way in life, and work for a living, NOT WANTING TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO AS IF THEY WERE STILL CHILDREN! Le duh

If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it.

We've been telling you guys to do that with music, movies, porn, magazines, books and video games for years now! Do us a favor and take a bit of your own advice first before telling us to be more tolerant..

Remember....let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.... :D

1. Although I admire C. S. Lewis for his insights, I have never read anything by him which indicates that "all who don't believe the way fundamentalist Christians believe are going to hell." The derivation of the term "hell" is very interesting. Seems the Greek for "hell" is the word "gehenna," which refers to a location in what is now Israel. It was a massive graveyard where the bodies of the poor, the diseased and those considered "outside the Jewish faith" were buried. Sometimes the gravediggers didn't bother with digging very deep graves and the stench was somewhat overpowering. Legends persist to this day that the spot is cursed and haunted. Thus the question of "hell" might refer to nothing more or less than a "cursed and haunted graveyard of the offcasts of society." Interesting, yes? :)

2. The scripture you quote was given by Jesus to his Apostles. He was encouraging them to "spread the good news" about the coming of the Messiah to members of the Jewish communities around the Mediterranian basin. It was only later, after Jesus' death, that Paul convinced Peter ( who was most reluctant ) to even attempt to convert "goyim" ( gentiles ... those not of the Jewish faith ). Nowhere in the Bible, that I'm aware of did Jesus give people instructions on how to make these conversions, leaving that to other passages of scripture, one of which I quoted earlier: "So live your lives among men that they will want to praise your Father who is in heaven."

3. This is true, which is why I will seldom involve myself in debates of that nature. Faith IS a matter of belief and reason only applies after one believes.


1. I don't mean to say that all non-believers go to hell. In fact, in the book I mentioned, several people are let into heaven who were non-believers and were converted in heaven. And hell as represented in this book, was symbolized as a giant grey town which expanded constantly from a bus stop to heaven in the middle. The people in hell were free to go to heaven whenever they wanted yet many chose to stay in hell because they could not let go of the things they wanted on earth. Hell, wasn't a "you burn and are tortured for the rest of your life kind of place" it was more of a "you're separated from God for the rest of existence" place. Plenty of "believers" turned back to hell as well thinking that surely this place couldn't be heaven. Anyway, by hell, christians mean Sheol, which was supposedly a dark cavern set under the earth and reserved for the dead in the Jewish faith.

2. Peter was reluctant because it said in the Old Testament that only circumcised men were allowed into the faith. In a way, Peter was bigot against gentiles. Paul convinced him otherwise.

Remember....let he who hath no sin cast the first stone.... :D
Um ... the passage you quote is from the Gospels and involves Jesus confronting a woman who was "taken in adultery." It now appears that entire story was added to the Bible sometime during the Middle Ages. Sorry, but no cigar, although there are other passeges which you could have quoted to even better effect. :)

I am an atheist, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to convert people. In fact, I find it offensive that some people who who have faith in Christianity don't try to convert me. This is eternal salvation we're talking about. You should value my happiness enough to risk being annoying for God's sake. Am I not good enough to have my soul saved, or what? That being said, I will fight you off with all my ability. It's just that from your standpoint, (believing in eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ) I would find it irresponsible to let people miss eternal paradise. I can try to understand the position of the evangelist.

although there are other passeges which you could have quoted to even better effect. :)

Sorry, I don't know any of them. I've been much to busy reading books about science. I'll leave fantasy to the fundies. :)

I am an atheist, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to convert people. In fact, I find it offensive that some people who who have faith in Christianity don't try to convert me. This is eternal salvation we're talking about. You should value my happiness enough to risk being annoying for God's sake. Am I not good enough to have my soul saved, or what? That being said, I will fight you off with all my ability. It's just that from your standpoint, (believing in eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ) I would find it irresponsible to let people miss eternal paradise. I can try to understand the position of the evangelist.

HOLY DOUBLE POST BATMAN! ;)

1. I don't mean to say that all non-believers go to hell. In fact, in the book I mentioned, several people are let into heaven who were non-believers and were converted in heaven. And hell as represented in this book, was symbolized as a giant grey town which expanded constantly from a bus stop to heaven in the middle. The people in hell were free to go to heaven whenever they wanted yet many chose to stay in hell because they could not let go of the things they wanted on earth. Hell, wasn't a "you burn and are tortured for the rest of your life kind of place" it was more of a "you're separated from God for the rest of existence" place. Plenty of "believers" turned back to hell as well thinking that surely this place couldn't be heaven. Anyway, by hell, christians mean Sheol, which was supposedly a dark cavern set under the earth and reserved for the dead in the Jewish faith.

2. Peter was reluctant because it said in the Old Testament that only circumcised men were allowed into the faith. In a way, Peter was bigot against gentiles. Paul convinced him otherwise.
1. Ok. :)

2. Peter had lots of very valid reasons for opposing Paul's insistence on preaching to the gentiles, but what finally convinced him was Paul's obvious conversion and the story about his conversion on the road to Damascus where he was travelling to persecute Christians.

I am an atheist, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to convert people. In fact, I find it offensive that some people who who have faith in Christianity don't try to convert me. This is eternal salvation we're talking about. You should value my happiness enough to risk being annoying for God's sake. Am I not good enough to have my soul saved, or what? That being said, I will fight you off with all my ability. It's just that from your standpoint, (believing in eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ) I would find it irresponsible to let people miss eternal paradise. I can try to understand the position of the evangelist.
You're very understanding. But I hope you have enough presence of mind to take what "christians" say with a grain of salt until you've had a chance to see if they truly live what they preach. Those who do are few and far, far between. You'll have to just trust me on that one. :)

HOLY DOUBLE POST BATMAN! ;)

Yeah. My internet keeps getting slow/dying, causing me to double-click in frustration.

1. Ok. :)

2. Peter had lots of very valid reasons for opposing Paul's insistence on preaching to the gentiles, but what finally convinced him was Paul's obvious conversion and the story about his conversion on the road to Damascus where he was travelling to persecute Christians.

2. Okay :P. But really, as that one guy said, if it's salvation we're talking about, why should we be hording it away from everyone else? Maybe we all know something they don't and they just don't know it or don't want to believe it.

Why shouldn't Christians be allowed to spread their faith? If someone is willing to listen isn't being done voutarily? No one is threatening or causeing violence. It is our duty as Christians to spread the good word of our Father. There is nothing wrong with that.

You're very understanding. But I hope you have enough presence of mind to take what "christians" say with a grain of salt until you've had a chance to see if they truly live what they preach. Those who do are few and far, far between. You'll have to just trust me on that one. :)

You're right, but you will never, NEVER find any christian who lives his life fully according to what he's supposed to. Because we are aspiring to a "christ-like" state which is, in itself, impossible. Following all the rules is not what gets you into heaven. Believing is what gets you there, the various kinks are worked out once you get in.

Anyway, by hell, christians mean Sheol, which was supposedly a dark cavern set under the earth and reserved for the dead in the Jewish faith.
BTW ... here's an interesting article (http://members.tripod.com/ApocryphalText/Hell.def.htm) on the deriviation of the word "hell:"

The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Sept. hades; Vulg. infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Gen., xxxvii, 35) as well as of the bad (Num., xvi, 30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ’s Ascension, hades (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ’s Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (II Cor., v 1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Neh., xi, 30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Jos., xv, 8), and gê-benê-hinnom (IV Kings, xxiii, 10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (IV Kings, xxiii, 10), cursed by Jeremias (Jer., vii, 31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulg. tartarus) (II Peter, ii, 4), "abyss" (Luke, viii, 31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke, xvi, 28), "pool of fire" (Apoc., xix, 20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matt., xiii, 42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matt., iii, 12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matt., xviii, 8; xxv, 41; Jude, 7), "exterior darkness" (Matt., vii, 12; xxii, 13; xxv, 30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (II Peter, ii, 17; Jude, 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, I Tim., vi, 9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, II Thess., i, 9), "corruption" (phthora, Gal., vi, 8), "death" (Rom., vi, 21), "second death" (Apoc., ii, 11 and elsewhere).

You're right, but you will never, NEVER find any christian who lives his life fully according to what he's supposed to. Because we are aspiring to a "christ-like" state which is, in itself, impossible. Following all the rules is not what gets you into heaven. Believing is what gets you there, the various kinks are worked out once you get in.
What I'm speaking of is the "transformation of the inner man" which is supposed to be manifest to all "because of their good works."

BTW ... here's an interesting article (http://members.tripod.com/ApocryphalText/Hell.def.htm) on the deriviation of the word "hell:"

The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Sept. hades; Vulg. infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Gen., xxxvii, 35) as well as of the bad (Num., xvi, 30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ’s Ascension, hades (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ’s Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (II Cor., v 1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Neh., xi, 30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Jos., xv, 8), and gê-benê-hinnom (IV Kings, xxiii, 10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (IV Kings, xxiii, 10), cursed by Jeremias (Jer., vii, 31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulg. tartarus) (II Peter, ii, 4), "abyss" (Luke, viii, 31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke, xvi, 28), "pool of fire" (Apoc., xix, 20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matt., xiii, 42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matt., iii, 12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matt., xviii, 8; xxv, 41; Jude, 7), "exterior darkness" (Matt., vii, 12; xxii, 13; xxv, 30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (II Peter, ii, 17; Jude, 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, I Tim., vi, 9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, II Thess., i, 9), "corruption" (phthora, Gal., vi, 8), "death" (Rom., vi, 21), "second death" (Apoc., ii, 11 and elsewhere).

Well, you've done your research, lol. Interesting stuff there. :)

2. Okay :P. But really, as that one guy said, if it's salvation we're talking about, why should we be hording it away from everyone else? Maybe we all know something they don't and they just don't know it or don't want to believe it.
Biblically speaking, that's the job of the Holy Spirit ... to "convict men of their sins." The job of the Christian, as outlined in the Bible, is to "so live your lives among men that they will see your good works and praise your Father who is in heaven."

Important distinction, that.

I hate both atheists and born-agains. How can you claim to know what can't be known? All that says to me is you got too big of a head on your shoulders. What religion all boils down to, is preference. I choose to believe because I choose to have have hope. It's just conforting to me. After all, what is there to lose if you believe and it turns to be false? Nothing. Maybe pride, or something, but I doubt you'll care all that much when you're dead.

What I'm speaking of is the "transformation of the inner man" which is supposed to be manifest to all "because of their good works."

Well, you will see that in the people who truly believe. There are many christians for whom belief is more of a "job" than a religion. In fact "The Great Divorce" says that these are often the ones who are the hardest to convert and in fact, the ones who abjectly renounce God in all he does are some of the easiest to bring over to belief in him.

No. Atheists do not choose to believe or disbelieve in god. They simply don't believe it. Let me give you an example. Pretend that I said that Hitler was a great humanitarian. You know a lot about Hitler, and that statement runs counter to everything you know about him. So, you don't believe it. Do you think there is any way in which you could *choose* to believe it?
By your logic there is no such thing as being converted [to any religion].
If you believe or disbelieve in something you cannot choose to not do that...so if you say people can convert to Christianity, then the same can be said for atheism.
~~~
By the way, I think that many people are missing the point Neo Cannen was trying to get accross...
It isn't that us Christians should do this...it's that other religions get angry at us if we do it, then turn around and do it themselves.

[BTW, I don't do this and I also hate anybody who does this.]

Well, you've done your research, lol. Interesting stuff there. :)
"Research!" Gahhh! I'm beginning my Ph.D. and am not looking forward to all that "research!" Please find a less threatening term! LOL! :D

"Research!" Gahhh! I'm beginning my Ph.D. and am not looking forward to all that "research!" Please find a less threatening term! LOL! :D

Lol, maybe "obligatory fact gathering"? :p

I hate both atheists and born-agains. How can you claim to know what can't be known? All that says to me is you got too big of a head on your shoulders. What religion all boils down to, is preference. I choose to believe because I choose to have have hope. It's just conforting to me. After all, what is there to lose if you believe and it turns to be false? Nothing. Maybe pride, or something, but I doubt you'll care all that much when you're dead.
"Believers" are called to "repentance," which means thoroughly renouncing all of your previous behavior and turning your face toward that to which God has called you. Belief without cost is no belief at all.

Lol, maybe "obligatory fact gathering"? :p
Heh! THAT'LL WORK! :D

Well, you will see that in the people who truly believe. There are many christians for whom belief is more of a "job" than a religion. In fact "The Great Divorce" says that these are often the ones who are the hardest to convert and in fact, the ones who abjectly renounce God in all he does are some of the easiest to bring over to belief in him.
That makes sense to me. Back in the "bad old days" when I was a Sunday School Teacher ( yes, I WAS! ), it was the person who had never truly known love who most wholeheartedly accepted the "love of God." I saw some truly amazing changes in people who truly believed that God loved them. :)

Well, no one should ever try to trick his fellow man into such a vicious system of control such as religion.

It's also a well-known fact that Jesus was a homosexual. :sniper:

Well, no one should ever try to trick his fellow man into such a vicious system of control such as religion.

It's also a well-known fact that Jesus was a homosexual. :sniper:
Some proof of this "fact" would be nice.

I have to agree with your first statement in part. I suspect that if Jesus were alive today he would have a flying fit about most of what passes for "religion."

I really don't have a problem with religion... i think the really problem lies with the church... Religion is just a religion, but the church tries to shape it to their liking.

The earliest clear memory I have was when I was having a nightmare about not existing. That may sound strange, but I dreamed that I died and I simply did not exist anymore. No consciousness, feeling, nothing. I was very young at the time and it really scared the hell out of me.

I grew up in a very Christian family and did the whole church and sunday school thing. I even got confirmed.

Right now I'm agnostic.

Why? Because eventually I asked myself why I was really Christian. I realized that I was only following that stuff because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't. I wanted the reward for being a good little boy.

Why are people afraid of the dark? It's a comfort to know what's there. It's a comfort to know there's a reason for everything. If Christianity works for you... fine. But only as long as you know why you're practicing it, and as long as you're thinking for yourself. There's a quote from a movie I like. I think it goes, "God is an imaginary friend for grown-ups." I just decided that I didn't need to believe in God anymore.

I don't have any problem with someone stating their views, as long as they give you the right to make up your own mind in the end. There's a bunch of Christians reading this thread. Can you calmly, rationally, and intelligently explain why you're Christian? I'm genuinely curious, I assure you.

The earliest clear memory I have was when I was having a nightmare about not existing. That may sound strange, but I dreamed that I died and I simply did not exist anymore. No consciousness, feeling, nothing. I was very young at the time and it really scared the hell out of me.

Right now I'm agnostic. Why? Because eventually I asked myself why I was really Christian. I realized that I was only following that stuff because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't.

Why are people afraid of the dark?

I don't have any problem with someone stating their views, as long as they give you the right to make up your own mind in the end. There's a bunch of Christians reading this thread. Can you calmly, rationally, and intelligently explain why you're Christian? I'm genuinely curious, I assure you.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition in the South. If you ever want to get your fill of the "hellfire and brimstone" method of preaching, just visit a Southern Baptist church. :)

You're right about lots of people being "christians" because they're afraid not to be. But fear is never a good reason for belief, IMHO. Take the fear away and what do you have? Not much.

I could have calmly, rationally, and intelligently explained why I was a Christian a few years back, but I no longer consider myself to be one in the modern American sense of the term.

BTW ... I'm not afraid of the dark, primarily because of the same reason that I "fear no evil."

"Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for lo, I am the evilest son-of-a-bitch in the valley!" :D

I really don't have a problem with religion... i think the really problem lies with the church... Religion is just a religion, but the church tries to shape it to their liking.

That's true, but since the institution (I assume we're talking strictly about Christianity) has taken so much control over the religion itself, there isn't much of a wedge between religion and church. Getting to the point of the thread, the problem with Christians, especially evangelicals, is that they force their beliefs on others. The best example is in Africa. Thousands of tribsmen were converted against their will. Things Fall Apart is the title, I believe, of a story about a tribe that was invaded upon by missionaries, and it illustrates, from the native POV how much destruction the Christians brought to them.

More recently, the so-called "Christian rights" groups in America are forcing their values on the rest of the country. It is not "God's United States of America"...yet, but until that time, we, as moral, intelligent and patriotic citizens, must defend America from the restrictions of freedoms the Christian rights groups are trying to force upon us. This isn't an "abortion is murder!" "abortion is freedom of choice!" "go screw a donkey!" "go molest a boy!" arguement, but I am strictly presenting what is wrong with the evangilical Christian rights groups. It's all cool if they practice their religion in the confines of their houses, churches etc, but I don't want to be restricted in a faith I'm not part of.

Freedom of religion means Freedom FROM religion too.

The earliest clear memory I have was when I was having a nightmare about not existing. That may sound strange, but I dreamed that I died and I simply did not exist anymore. No consciousness, feeling, nothing. I was very young at the time and it really scared the hell out of me.

I grew up in a very Christian family and did the whole church and sunday school thing. I even got confirmed.

Right now I'm agnostic.

Why? Because eventually I asked myself why I was really Christian. I realized that I was only following that stuff because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't. I wanted the reward for being a good little boy.

Why are people afraid of the dark? It's a comfort to know what's there. It's a comfort to know there's a reason for everything. If Christianity works for you... fine. But only as long as you know why you're practicing it, and as long as you're thinking for yourself. There's a quote from a movie I like. I think it goes, "God is an imaginary friend for grown-ups." I just decided that I didn't need to believe in God anymore.

I don't have any problem with someone stating their views, as long as they give you the right to make up your own mind in the end. There's a bunch of Christians reading this thread. Can you calmly, rationally, and intelligently explain why you're Christian? I'm genuinely curious, I assure you.

That, my friend, would take a long long post, but I can give you a couple of things which factor in heavily.

1. The world is incredibly complex, very few things in this universe don't have a purpose. How is this possible without some kind of intelligent design. I refuse to believe that all of what I see around me is created through some kind of statistical anomaly. There's and argument that says you cannot expect to throw the pieces of a watch into a dryer and come out with a complete watch. For that reason, I believe God is real.

2. I believe in the Bible. People seem to think the church is trying to oppress you into following whatever it teaches and they use the Bible as means to that end. These kinds of people tend to think of the Bible as a kind of "fairy tale" book. Why would anyone make this story up? It's teachings are so radically different from any other religion that it makes no sense to make it up. Other religions teach that you can "destroy" the unbelievers or attack your enemies and that to do so is right. Not so Christianity, though many believe that it is their right to attack others and many churches these days defend that with the "Just War Theory" which I disagree with, Christianity teaches that unless the unbeliever seeks to desecrate a place dedicated to God (Jesus literally takes a whip to the merchants who sought to make a market out of "God's House" in Jerusalem.) you are not to commit violence against another human being.

3. I believe in Jesus because there is solid proof that he existed. There are letters written by many Romans who reported actually seeing Jesus crucified. He existed, whether he was ressurected could be debated.

4. I believe in Christianity because it is one of the few religions whose doctrine has remained basically intact and the same for the past 2000 years. Sure there have been split offs but the majority of Christians still follow one of the main branches of Christianity which has retained the original teachings set down by Jesus.

BTW, if you are christian because you are "afraid" than you might as well not be christian. A true christian will not fear God, but will trust in his ability to make things right.

Well, that's the short version. I really don't like writing long diatribes, so I won't. This'll have to do.

That, my friend, would take a long long post, but I can give you a couple of things which factor in heavily.

1. The world is incredibly complex, very few things in this universe don't have a purpose. How is this possible without some kind of intelligent design. I refuse to believe that all of what I see around me is created through some kind of statistical anomaly. There's and argument that says you cannot expect to throw the pieces of a watch into a dryer and come out with a complete watch. For that reason, I believe God is real.

2. I believe in the Bible. People seem to think the church is trying to oppress you into following whatever it teaches and they use the Bible as means to that end. These kinds of people tend to think of the Bible as a kind of "fairy tale" book. Why would anyone make this story up? It's teachings are so radically different from any other religion that it makes no sense to make it up. Other religions teach that you can "destroy" the unbelievers or attack your enemies and that to do so is right. Not so Christianity, though many believe that it is their right to attack others and many churches these days defend that with the "Just War Theory" which I disagree with, Christianity teaches that unless the unbeliever seeks to desecrate a place dedicated to God (Jesus literally takes a whip to the merchants who sought to make a market out of "God's House" in Jerusalem.) you are not to commit violence against another human being.

3. I believe in Jesus because there is solid proof that he existed. There are letters written by many Romans who reported actually seeing Jesus crucified. He existed, whether he was ressurected could be debated.

4. I believe in Christianity because it is one of the few religions whose doctrine has remained basically intact and the same for the past 2000 years. Sure there have been split offs but the majority of Christians still follow one of the main branches of Christianity which has retained the original teachings set down by Jesus.

BTW, if you are christian because you are "afraid" than you might as well not be christian. A true christian will not fear God, but will trust in his ability to make things right.

Well, that's the short version. I really don't like writing long diatribes, so I won't. This'll have to do.

Unless you are of the Catholic or to a lesser extent Orthodox church it is very much hard for you to make the claim that Christen Doctrine has not changed in any large degree since the founding of Christ's church. Anyways, the topic.

Converting should not happen the way evangelical protestants try to do it.In order to convert someone, in my opinion you must live by example and do good works for the community , if they ask questions answer them, and pray the rosary that the they will open their hearts to God and his Church.

As for why I beleive in God,
1. Because he came down and made the ultimate sacrifice for all of humanity's sins.

A excellent question Neo Cannen. I have never had any problem with anyone beleaving in anything they like. Now, I also beleave that one should just leave thier religion to themselves. No one likes to have someone tell them that thier current religion is wrong. This goes for every religion or lack thereof. Personally, I ignore the evans. that try to convert me. What really burns me is how evans. try and force thier morals on those who disagree with it.

1. The world is incredibly complex, very few things in this universe don't have a purpose. How is this possible without some kind of intelligent design. I refuse to believe that all of what I see around me is created through some kind of statistical anomaly. There's and argument that says you cannot expect to throw the pieces of a watch into a dryer and come out with a complete watch. For that reason, I believe God is real.
And that is what we call a baseless assumption and a poor analogy.
There is no evidence of design, there isn't really much evidence of purpose beyond observed functions...

3. I believe in Jesus because there is solid proof that he existed. There are letters written by many Romans who reported actually seeing Jesus crucified. He existed, whether he was ressurected could be debated.
Actually, if you read the letters, the roman historians are talking about christians who claimed this man was crucified. There is no actual evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, hell, the story blatantly borrows from a number of pagan god-man myths.

4. I believe in Christianity because it is one of the few religions whose doctrine has remained basically intact and the same for the past 2000 years. Sure there have been split offs but the majority of Christians still follow one of the main branches of Christianity which has retained the original teachings set down by Jesus.
Wow, you don't know much about the history of your own religion, do you?
For one thing, there were so many gospels that weren't even put into the bible. For another, the "fact" of the divinity of Jesus was put to vote in 300CE at the council of Nicea. For another, all the rituals and festivals of christianity are based on the pagan ones.

A excellent question Neo Cannen. I have never had any problem with anyone beleaving in anything they like. Now, I also beleave that one should just leave thier religion to themselves. No one likes to have someone tell them that thier current religion is wrong. This goes for every religion or lack thereof. Personally, I ignore the evans. that try to convert me. What really burns me is how evans. try and force thier morals on those who disagree with it.

Exactly I have never had an atheist try to do anything but discuss and think (while this can deffinatly be annoying) at least they are not trying to run my life

I don't know if anyone's brought this up and frankly I don't have the time right now to dig through 6 pages of posts, but in some countries, especially many Islamic ones, prolythising is against the law.

I can't say that I think those laws are wrong either. Religion is a personal matter and those countries that make it unlawfull to try to convert someone may be on to something.

I don't know if anyone's brought this up and frankly I don't have the time right now to dig through 6 pages of posts, but in some countries, especially many Islamic ones, prolythising is against the law.

I can't say that I think those laws are wrong either. Religion is a personal matter and those countries that make it unlawfull to try to convert someone may be on to something.

While I dont like being pressured or bugged for me at least fredom of speach is worth the hasstle

While I dont like being pressured or bugged for me at least fredom of speach is worth the hasstleI'm not sure if I agree that prolythising should be considered protected speech. Maybe evangilizing but not prolythising. There's a difference between speeking your beliefs and asking people to come and listen and seeking out and trying to convert those who don't necessarily want it.

I'm not sure if I agree that prolythising should be considered protected speech. Maybe evangilizing but not prolythising. There's a difference between speeking your beliefs and asking people to come and listen and seeking out and trying to convert those who don't necessarily want it.

Yes, we should all enocurage this view.

I am sure that many, many, English are upset by the constant prosletizing being done by muslims in their country. Vote BNP. :rolleyes:

Yes, we should all enocurage this view.

I am sure that many, many, English are upset by the constant prosletizing being done by muslims in their country. Vote BNP. :rolleyes:OK..... I recognize the sarcasm but fail to grasp the relevance to my post.

OK..... I recognize the sarcasm but fail to grasp the relevance to my post.


Well yeah, you are right, freedom of assembly should go too.

I don't know if anyone's brought this up and frankly I don't have the time right now to dig through 6 pages of posts, but in some countries, especially many Islamic ones, prolythising is against the law.

I can't say that I think those laws are wrong either. Religion is a personal matter and those countries that make it unlawfull to try to convert someone may be on to something.

Yes, if only we defended European culture the same way.

I know, we should invite a million fillipino guest workers to do menial jobs that no-one else wants to do, then when they have private prayer sessions arrest them. :rolleyes:

But whatever.

Yes, if only we defended European culture the same way.

I know, we should invite a million fillipino guest workers to do menial jobs that no-one else wants to do, then when they have private prayer sessions arrest them. :rolleyes:

But whatever.Perhaps you don't understand my position correctly, your posts don't make any sense if they're supposed to be some sort of rebuttal.

But then perhaps your severe case of cranial rectal inversion is limiting your viewpoint.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I'd think a group which whines so much about having undesirable lifestyles and beliefs shoved down their throat would recognise why it is the civilized world finds it so repugnant. :)

Perhaps you don't understand my position correctly, your posts don't make any sense if they're supposed to be some sort of rebuttal.

But then perhaps your severe case of cranial rectal inversion is limiting your viewpoint.

Maybe, I can't understand your position because you can't just say asshat when you mean asshat.

Why don't you just try and explain it using your own words, instead of ones that other people have fed you.

Failing that, you don't have a point, do you?

Maybe, I can't understand your position because you can't just say asshat when you mean asshat.

Why don't you just try and explain it using your own words, instead of ones that other people have fed you.

Failing that, you don't have a point, do you?I have a point and unlike yours it's not on my head. These are my words numb-nuts, I speak and type precisely so my meaning is clear, sorry if you have a problem with it, look up the big words if it helps.

My point is I agree with those countries that outlaw prolythising. I think religion isn't something that should be sold door-to-door. I don't think any religion or religious fanatic should have the right to pester other faiths into converting to theirs. Christians are the biggest offenders in this, sorry but it's true. Most other religions don't send out missionaries with the sole purpose of converting the 'heathens'.

Did I use too many multi-syllable words for you?

I have a point and unlike yours it's not on my head. These are my words numb-nuts, I speak and type precisely so my meaning is clear, sorry if you have a problem with it, look up the big words if it helps.

You have a real anger control problem. No wonder you can't hold a relationship together. You know, sometimes, it is you. And I only say this as a friend.

My point is I agree with those countries that outlaw prolythising. I think religion isn't something that should be sold door-to-door. I don't think any religion or religious fanatic should have the right to pester other faiths into converting to theirs. Christians are the biggest offenders in this, sorry but it's true. Most other religions don't send out missionaries with the sole purpose of converting the 'heathens'.

I agree 'prolythising' should be completely outlawed. It is evil.

I also think that people should be free to practice their religion however. So, you know, don't invite them to your country, then ban their form of worship. I mean, England could ban Islam tomorrow, couldn't it? But that wouldn't be right. Would it?

And no, Christians are not the worst, ask Theo Van Gogh. If you can find him.

But I guess you do, in fact, agree with the BNP.

Did I use too many multi-syllable words for you?

Other than 'prolythising' no, I could kind of follow along.

You have a real anger control problem. No wonder you can't hold a relationship together. You know, sometimes, it is you. And I only say this as a friend.



I agree 'prolythising' should be completely outlawed. It is evil.

I also think that people should be free to practice their religion however. So, you know, don't invite them to your country, then ban their form of worship. I mean, England could ban Islam tomorrow, couldn't it? But that wouldn't be right. Would it?

And no, Christians are not the worst, ask Theo Van Gogh. If you can find him.

But I guess you do, in fact, agree with the BNP.



Other than 'prolythising' no, I could kind of follow along.I doubt I agree with anything the BNP stands for, but anythings possible, they are after all remotely human. And I still stand by my assesment of christians. I've known people of all sects and the only ones who ever tried to convert me were christians. The countries I refer to don't ban Christianity, they just ban Prolythising. Open another browser window with dictionary.com in it, it'll help with that problem of yours. My relationship lasted 21 years before I decided I had enough, I think I held it together as much as anyone could be expected to, but thanks for your input Dr. Phil.

I doubt I agree with anything the BNP stands for, but anythings possible, they are after all remotely human. And I still stand by my assesment of christians. I've known people of all sects and the only ones who ever tried to convert me were christians. The countries I refer to don't ban Christianity, they just ban Prolythising. Open another browser window with dictionary.com in it, it'll help with that problem of yours. My relationship lasted 21 years before I decided I had enough, I think I held it together as much as anyone could be expected to, but thanks for your input Dr. Phil.

Well, I am glad you have calmed down. Thank you. :)


The middle east faces the same problems that europe does, in that it has invited people to work there, but cannot tollerate the religion they bring with them.

Thus they pass laws against religion. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any movement in Saudi Arabia to reform the country and make it a Christian Theocracry. There certianly is the equivalent in the UK, in respect of creating an Islamic theocracy. Also, this movement is tolerated completely under the laws of free speach.

One of the BNP planks, is that there should be no public encouragement towards Islam, and, indeed, all muslim activities should be hidden as counter cultural. That, I think, is not too far off from your general position.

But stop labelling all Christians can you? Some christians wanted to convert you, therefore all christians are evil. Really now, the only time my car was stolen it was stolen by a black man, should I use the same logic?

Well, I am glad you have calmed down. Thank you. :)


The middle east faces the same problems that europe does, in that it has invited people to work there, but cannot tollerate the religion they bring with them.

Thus they pass laws against religion. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any movement in Saudi Arabia to reform the country and make it a Christian Theocracry. There certianly is the equivalent in the UK, in respect of creating an Islamic theocracy. Also, this movement is tolerated completely under the laws of free speach.

One of the BNP planks, is that there should be no public encouragement towards Islam, and, indeed, all muslim activities should be hidden as counter cultural. That, I think, is not too far off from your general position.

But stop labelling all Christians can you? Some christians wanted to convert you, therefore all christians are evil. Really now, the only time my car was stolen it was stolen by a black man, should I use the same logic?In what fantasy world is there a movement to create a muslim theocracy in the UK? No wonder the BNP is laughed at. There should be no public encouragement of any religion but if you want to hide any as counter cultural, hide them all. You're about as far off my position as you can get. I was raised Catholic (I got over it), I simply state a fact that the only people who ever tried to convert me were also christians, just of a different sect. If the label fits, I'll paste it on. But I didn't say all Christians are evil, just that most prolythising is done by Christians. That doesn't even mean that all Christians are out there prolythising, don't take steps I'm not.
The only time I was ever mugged it was by a bunch of white punks, but just like your car theft, that means nothing. I'm off for the night, find someone else to torment with your drivel.

In what fantasy world is there a movement to create a muslim theocracy in the UK? No wonder the BNP is laughed at. There should be no public encouragement of any religion but if you want to hide any as counter cultural, hide them all. You're about as far off my position as you can get. I was raised Catholic (I got over it), I simply state a fact that the only people who ever tried to convert me were also christians, just of a different sect. If the label fits, I'll paste it on. But I didn't say all Christians are evil, just that most prolythising is done by Christians. That doesn't even mean that all Christians are out there prolythising, don't take steps I'm not.
The only time I was ever mugged it was by a bunch of white punks, but just like your car theft, that means nothing. I'm off for the night, find someone else to torment with your drivel.

I suppose in Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad's fantasy world. But unlike you, I just laugh him off, I wouldn't outlaw his movement.

Also I can spell proselytizing. Now, read something before you get all bitchy.

--snip--
Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it.
--snip--


What gets folks angry is the Christian assertion that Christianity in general (and their sect in particular) is THE truth as opposed to what it really is -- A truth. Each person comes to faith -- true faith, anyway -- individually, on their own, using the testimony of others and the words of spiritual texts as guides. Even within one denomination, one person's idea of faith is drastically different (and sometimes opposed) to another's.

Another source of proselytizing backlash is the smugness many (NOT ALL) "witnesses" exude when being challenged, doubted or questioned.

What gets folks angry is the Christian assertion that Christianity in general (and their sect in particular) is THE truth as opposed to what it really is -- A truth. Each person comes to faith -- true faith, anyway -- individually, on their own, using the testimony of others and the words of spiritual texts as guides. Even within one denomination, one person's idea of faith is drastically different (and sometimes opposed) to another's.

Another source of proselytizing backlash is the smugness many (NOT ALL) "witnesses" exude when being challenged, doubted or questioned.

Yeah, like you are only a true muslim when you fly a plane into a tall building. :rolleyes:

I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to express anti-Christian, anti-freedom of speech views. I just really disagree with them.

It wouldn't be as bad if they applied it to all religions, but the people I'm talking about have it out most for Christians.
--snip--


Okay. Look at that second sentence for juuuuust a second. Now think about it...the Trinity Broadcasting Network...700 Club...Jerry Falwell...Oral (and Anal) Roberts...Benny Hinn...Casey Treat...Promise Keepers (no relation to Trapper Keepers, btw)...I think, though I might be crazy, but I THINK that the "left-wing" opposition to Christianity isn't applied to all religions because all religions aren't so constantly and consistently annoying. There is no Buddhist Broadcasting Corporation, and if there were, I am damn sure they wouldn't ask me for money.

Boycotts, protests, lobbyists -- fellas, you want in on the American political scheme? Then pay your way like the rest of us. The next church to publicly endorse or condemn any candidate or political measure gets TAXED. You don't like it? Broadcast all you want, but keep your politics within your pulpit and out of DC. Taxes or tolerance, which will it be? [If only I had the power to make this possible....]

Yeah, like you are only a true muslim when you fly a plane into a tall building. :rolleyes:

Huh? You wanna roll your eyes at me, sonny, you're gonna have to make your post relevant. If anything, what I posted includes what you just said as part of the problem. A group of Muslims out there seriously believes it to be the truth that the US needs a Godsmack (or an Allahsmack, I guess), and will stop at nothing to be the Hand of Allah. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that they believe, with every last breath, that theirs, also, is THE only truth. Can such divergent points of view both be correct?

Huh? You wanna roll your eyes at me, sonny, you're gonna have to make your post relevant. If anything, what I posted includes what you just said as part of the problem. A group of Muslims out there seriously believes it to be the truth that the US needs a Godsmack (or an Allahsmack, I guess), and will stop at nothing to be the Hand of Allah. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that they believe, with every last breath, that theirs, also, is THE only truth. Can such divergent points of view both be correct?

No, they can't. But it is not the point of view of christianty that there is only one truth.

Okay. Look at that second sentence for juuuuust a second. Now think about it...the Trinity Broadcasting Network...700 Club...Jerry Falwell...Oral (and Anal) Roberts...Benny Hinn...Casey Treat...Promise Keepers (no relation to Trapper Keepers, btw)...I think, though I might be crazy, but I THINK that the "left-wing" opposition to Christianity isn't applied to all religions because all religions aren't so constantly and consistently annoying. There is no Buddhist Broadcasting Corporation, and if there were, I am damn sure they wouldn't ask me for money.

Boycotts, protests, lobbyists -- fellas, you want in on the American political scheme? Then pay your way like the rest of us. The next church to publicly endorse or condemn any candidate or political measure gets TAXED. You don't like it? Broadcast all you want, but keep your politics within your pulpit and out of DC. Taxes or tolerance, which will it be? [If only I had the power to make this possible....]

Sometimes I wish I were more coherent, then I could type this stuff out, instead of having a random collection of incoherent thoughts in my head that, if brought to a rolling boil for 5 hours, could come out as a post as insightful and dead-on accurate as this one!

Thanks...you get one of these... :fluffle:

While not Christian, I am "spiritual", and I think the main reason that Christian's get so much flak for trying to spread their beliefs, is that I've never seen an Atheist (or any religion besides Christianity for that matter), do anything other than debate me. They might tell me I'm wrong, or outline their point of view, but in my experience it is only Christians that attempt to change my own belief system.

When was the last time an Atheist walked up to you and said..."Do you believe in God? You do? We really need to talk, I've got some stuff here you should read."

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?
I personally hate the idea of converting people because its a fundamental statement that the converter knows better than the convertee. Conversion, in my mind, should consist of people interested in your religion coming to you and you informing them what it's like. It really ticks me off when people think they know better than someone else on a subject that has no evidence besides each religions holy scriptures.
But that's just me.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I don't know. You'd have thought being told how I'm evil and condemned to eternal damnation for not believing what you believe, and how what you believe is better or more accurate than what I believe, would garner a warm, fuzzy feeling in my heart. I simply can't understand why it doesn't! :rolleyes:

All I know is, if you bring that trash near me without me specifically asking you to, I'll show you a religious experience of the 'knuckled' variety. Because if I wanted to hear it, I'd go to church, my friend! Guess what? I DON'T GO TO CHURCH!

in answer to the question that is the topic: it is freaking annoying! also, the fact they get narky when someone tries to debate the religion/promote their own.

Thanks...you get one of these... :fluffle:



How sweet! Thank you! That's my first fluffle. I aspire to have but a hundredth of the number of fluffles a superstar like TINK has, but I'll cherish this first one forever.

:fluffle:

Backatcha!

I am a theist, but I'm happily un-enchurched. I will try to answer this to the best of my ability without letting my belief-structure interfere.

Whether people believe in god or they don't, I think that a person's right to think and believe on their own terms is holy and sacred. If the Christian god has allowed us free will, it is each individual's responsibility to come to a construction of spirituality on their own terms. To be glib, religion is like sex. No cajoling or manipulation or pressure. If someone is coerced to believe something, there can be no surety that this person adopts this spiritual path of their own free will. In respect to evangelising of any kind, we must remember that it is a person's resonsibility to manage their own spirituality, and no-one else's. A person of faith may show concern about another person's spiritual path, but they must respect that person's right to believe what they want.

We must distinguish between evangelising for the sake of the recipient and evangelising for the sake of the evangeliser, or evangelising for the sake of your church (like a scalps-for-Jesus program). If you are approached by a person about your faith, and that person has genuine questions, a person of faith has a responsibility to answer those questions. Evangelism must be an act of love for another person, not an act based on the needs of the self, even if those needs are to please god. If you need to please god, do so with your actions above anything else. When you truly live a life that tries to exemplify your spirituality, your actions are the most powerful and profound manifestation of your spirituality. You do more for your faith by living it than you will ever do by talking about it.

If you are a person of faith, you have to love god above all other things. This makes it hard to distinguish reasons for evangelising to others. Do you evangelise out of your love for, or eagernes to please, god, or do you evangelise out of your love for your audience? I would hazard a generalisation that any evangelism is ultimately motivated by the self, despite any protestations that it is done out of an obligation to god. The fact is, if we take the act of:

Living your entire life abuzz with spiritual energy and sacrificing all things for your spiritual path,
and compare it to:

Evangelising

One of those things is a lot easier to do and to maintain than the other, no matter how strong your faith is, and how dedicated you are to your path. The first is a far more powerful and profound way to spread the message of your spirituality in your life. The latter is just good scholarship.

We need to remember that the most important thing is to love your own construct of spirituality above all things. Construct of spirituality does NOT mean church or dogma or even religious text. It means the Spirituality that manifests itself inside you. This might be god, or it might be a sense of connection to the universe. It can be as diverse as you need it to be.

Equal to this, we MUST try to respect every person, with our thoughts, words, and actions. When you ACT and SPEAK with love and respect, it changes your thoughts.* Even if I was atheist, I think I would have faith that humanity is, on the whole, pretty damn good. Even despite our differences, we are all still good people, or at least we try to be. I think that kind of faith in PEOPLE (or the god within people, if you prefer that,) is far more conducive to humanity than a belief in religious dogma will ever be.
Finally, and what I think is most obviously neglected as far as matters of religion go, Church is not spirituality. Church is just a place where people get together to support each other in their spiritual path. It comes resplendent in its theories, dogma, scripture and ritual, but it is not spirituality. You can find spirituality without church. You don't even need scripture. If you believe in something spiritual, you can find it everywhere. If you're an atheist, you've probably realised that humanity is connected by things that are far greater, (like love and common experience) than what we can advertise in a church and label "god."
I hope that doesn't sound all preachy. I just think that distinctions and definitions of our motivations and our obligations have to be made.

*"Action -> Thought" is the whole premise of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and is fundamental to the way human beings can change their lives.

Intangelon - Why, thank you! :)

*puts fluffle in his pocket, to save for a rainy day* :p

There is nothing wrong with evangelism. Sharing your beliefs with others is a positive thing. Whether they be political beliefs, religious beliefs, or something as trivial as sports team affiliation, sharing your beliefs is a good thing that should be encouraged. Of course you want to use common sense. If you are a dedicated white supremacist you do not want to share those beliefs with your black neighbor. But other than such common sense issues, sharing your beliefs is a good thing to do.

isn't a choice involved, though?

Yes, in the same way that "choice" is involved in accepting that g is ~9.8 m/s/s.

There is nothing wrong with evangelism. Sharing your beliefs with others is a positive thing. Whether they be political beliefs, religious beliefs, or something as trivial as sports team affiliation, sharing your beliefs is a good thing that should be encouraged. Of course you want to use common sense. If you are a dedicated white supremacist you do not want to share those beliefs with your black neighbor. But other than such common sense issues, sharing your beliefs is a good thing to do.

Even if it annoys the hell out of everyone you talk to?

Here's my bit on this. I believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there is not.

Wrong. Atheists *lack* belief in gods. This is the single defining feature of atheists. We lack belief in gods. That does not entail belief in the nonexistence of gods. We do have specific concepts of gods that we accept as false [the christian notion, for example].


You really cannot prove this either way. Just like with all(OK, most) things, the way we look at the world is based on theory. The Theory of Christianity, or The Theory of Atheism. Just like The Theory of Gravity.

Gravity is a fact. The various theories associated with that are intended to *explain* gravity.



Admit it, all of you, For all you know, the Earth is held up by an elephant on the back of a turtle.(speaking metiphorically)


Eh, no.


Why you should be Christian runs the same as Why evolution is right. Both are theoretical arguments.


Evolution, like gravity, is a fact. The associated theory is intended to *explain* that fact. There is no theoretical argument as to the reality of evolution - it happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. That is simple fact.

No, they can't. But it is not the point of view of christianty that there is only one truth.

Boy you got that wrong. Islam believe there are no other Gods than Allah.

There is nothing wrong with evangelism. Sharing your beliefs with others is a positive thing. Whether they be political beliefs, religious beliefs, or something as trivial as sports team affiliation, sharing your beliefs is a good thing that should be encouraged. Of course you want to use common sense. If you are a dedicated white supremacist you do not want to share those beliefs with your black neighbor. But other than such common sense issues, sharing your beliefs is a good thing to do.
there is a vast difference between sharing your beliefs and shoving them down peoples throats. catholics, lutherens, anglicans and most of the 'traditional' churches do the former. evangelists do the latter.

It wouldn't be as bad if they applied it to all religions, but the people I'm talking about have it out most for Christians.


That's *probably* down to the fact that the majority of religious spam on NS is *from* christians.

When the latest \ /1@gr@ spam arrives you don't sit there saying "Another bloody Nigerian money scam".

Even if it annoys the hell out of everyone you talk to?

Hence people got to learn to be tactful. Or at least be more open minded.

Not all Christians come up to you and start condemning you that your a sinner and you better accept Jesus or your going to hell.

Edit: lol. kinda reminds me. Although I'm a Christian. I have punched another Christian for trying to evangelise to me about 'true Christianity'.. I mean.. He was just so bloody irritating. :D

There is nothing wrong with evangelism. Sharing your beliefs with others is a positive thing. Whether they be political beliefs, religious beliefs, or something as trivial as sports team affiliation, sharing your beliefs is a good thing that should be encouraged. Of course you want to use common sense. If you are a dedicated white supremacist you do not want to share those beliefs with your black neighbor. But other than such common sense issues, sharing your beliefs is a good thing to do.

That's a good point, but the most vocal proselytizers aren't very good at sharing beliefs. Infact proselytizing has nothing to do with sharing, it's about eradicating someone elses views in favor of your own. No respect for the other party.

Even if it annoys the hell out of everyone you talk to?

No, if they are annoyed then you just move on to someone else.

That's a good point, but the most vocal proselytizers aren't very good at sharing beliefs. Infact proselytizing has nothing to do with sharing, it's about eradicating someone elses views in favor of your own. No respect for the other party.
couldnt have summed it up better myself

feel free to evangelise on forums, but I draw the line at people coming to my house.

No, thankyou, I HAVE noticed the cathedral/mosque/synagogue/place where JWs go/crappy 1960s red brick church and no, I DON'T want to come along and see what it's about.

That's a good point, but the most vocal proselytizers aren't very good at sharing beliefs. Infact proselytizing has nothing to do with sharing, it's about eradicating someone elses views in favor of your own. No respect for the other party.

Its not about eradicating anything, its just a different style of delivering your message. The two types of speech most useful for sharing your views on a topic such as religion or politics are the expository type and the persuasive type. Proselytizing is simply using a persuasive rather than an expository style.

Not trying to flame anyone, just correcting some mistaken points of view here.

Correcting some views that are only mistaken according to those who share your beliefs.



1. God gives you a choice in whether you want to go to heaven, or to hell. If you don't want God on earth, than you sure as hell don't want him in heaven. It's your choice. Try reading C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce", it gives you an excellent insight into the whole heaven/hell philosophy.


This assumes that there *is* a god. As far as *we* are concerned, you need to support that with evidence. If you can't, we simply aren't interested. If you claim that a request for evidence is invalid, or that evidence cannot in principle exist, we will ask you why you bother with the concept in the first place.



2. One of Jesus' last commandments was "to go make disciples of all nations". So it's kind of a perogative for christians to try to convert others.


Fine - by all means go and convert other christians [they are the one's who believe the proselytising is hunky dorey, not us].


3. There's no way you can disprove God with facts just as there is no way to prove he exists with facts. It all depends on what you "believe".

Then why introduce the concept? If there is no way to demonstrate the validity of your position, what is its basis? If you can only invoke "faith", we aren't interested.

Why shouldn't Christians be allowed to spread their faith? If someone is willing to listen isn't being done voutarily? No one is threatening or causeing violence. It is our duty as Christians to spread the good word of our Father. There is nothing wrong with that.

Fine - why don't they ask, politely, whether or not we want to be preached at? Why does it take a killfile to keep them out of my inbox?

Fine - why don't they ask, politely, whether or not we want to be preached at? Why does it take a killfile to keep them out of my inbox?

They should. But they don't. it's Christians like these gives Christians a bad name.

Its not about eradicating anything, its just a different style of delivering your message. The two types of speech most useful for sharing your views on a topic such as religion or politics are the expository type and the persuasive type. Proselytizing is simply using a persuasive rather than an expository style.
The dictionary says "To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." As I see it that doesn't leave much room for the other persons view or faith.

I know these people are a minorty but they are the most vocal and annoying and thus get more attention.

No, thankyou, I HAVE noticed the cathedral/mosque/synagogue/place where JWs go/crappy 1960s red brick church and no, I DON'T want to come along and see what it's about.

Would you believe this is a church :)

http://www.chc.org.sg/

Pretty cool building. Oh requires Flash I think.

Would you believe this is a church :)

Looked like a rockshow or something. :eek:

Looked like a rockshow or something. :eek:

Largest church in Singapore. Has about 15 thousand members (not just Christmas visitors :p).

Now that is a church you wouldn't mind entering at least once to check it out. :D

The largest church in the world is in South Korea. Can't remember the name. It has occupancy of 40k per week! They rent a stadium.

The dictionary says "To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." As I see it that doesn't leave much room for the other persons view or faith.

I know these people are a minorty but they are the most vocal and annoying and thus get more attention.
the thing that ticks me off is when this minority gets called the moral majority when the average joe wouldnt give two hoots about their issues.

Would you believe this is a church :)

http://www.chc.org.sg/

Pretty cool building. Oh requires Flash I think.

God smite the Christian hypocrites. Did not Jesus say to give away all your possessions? Where did he say "build a crazy big church and fill it with shiny things"?

God smite the Christian hypocrites. Did not Jesus say to give away all your possessions? Where did he say "build a crazy big church and fill it with shiny things"?

When God commanded the Israelites to build his temple, he did not ask them to build a wooden shack. God gave them specific instructions that called for the use of pure gold and the finest linens and wood available. Here is a short sample of the instructions on how he wanted his temple:

Exodus 26:31 "Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim worked into it by a skilled craftsman. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases.

The things you do for God should always be the best you could possibly do. The idea that God doesnt like nice and expensive things is a myth.

God smite the Christian hypocrites. Did not Jesus say to give away all your possessions? Where did he say "build a crazy big church and fill it with shiny things"?

Heheh. Lol. They are one of the largest donaters to aid and charities in Singapore.

Thats a misquotation as well from the bible (concerning what Jesus says). He says to "give away all your possessions and follow me". Plus the boy was boasting to Jesus about his self-righteousness. Mark 10:17. He says "all these things I have kept from my youth".

I have seen many people give away all their possessions and then go to some funny place in India or Africa to evangelise and end up a failure. You have to have a calling. Not everyone is called to give up all their possessions. :p

Correcting some views that are only mistaken according to those who share your beliefs.




This assumes that there *is* a god. As far as *we* are concerned, you need to support that with evidence. If you can't, we simply aren't interested. If you claim that a request for evidence is invalid, or that evidence cannot in principle exist, we will ask you why you bother with the concept in the first place.




Fine - by all means go and convert other christians [they are the one's who believe the proselytising is hunky dorey, not us].



Then why introduce the concept? If there is no way to demonstrate the validity of your position, what is its basis? If you can only invoke "faith", we aren't interested.

Okay dude, you just really didn't get what I was saying did you?

1. By mistaken points of view I meant people were saying that the church teaches one thing when it really doesn't. This was correcting the people who were talking about evangelicals shoving "fire and brimstone" down peoples throats. Those evangelicals are wrong about that. You can believe or disbelieve as you will, but this is what most sects of Christianity teach.

2. What you said didn't make any sense to me. Preach about God to other christians when Jesus told us to make disciples of all nations? I'm sorry, you lost me on that one.

3. Why not? Why introduce "no god" as a fact? Personally, I'd rather believe in a God than not. Even if it turns out to not be true in the end, I don't think I would've lost much, because life on Earth would have been pointless anyway.

When God commanded the Israelites to build his temple, he did not ask them to build a wooden shack. God gave them specific instructions that called for the use of pure gold and the finest linens and wood available. Here is a short sample of the instructions on how he wanted his temple:

Exodus 26:31 "Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim worked into it by a skilled craftsman. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases.

The things you do for God should always be the best you could possibly do. The idea that God doesnt like nice and expensive things is a myth.
its either that, or corruption to the texts to be an excuse for the popes to live in such a palace

its either that, or corruption to the texts to be an excuse for the popes to live in such a palace

Exodus is in the pentateuch. It is the jews who have kept those texts throughout the generations (and continue to this day), not the popes.

Actually I think the face of Christianity is changing. Or following closer to the Bible.

People got the feeling that being poor is Holy. But in fact, poverty is a Curse. Church mouse etc. :p

Some churches like the one I just showed, follow very closely to Paul (because he's the apostle to the Gentiles) and his writings about prosperity (Usually other Christians call them Prosperity preaching). One that I keep on seeing now and then is Romans 11:11 - 14.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? (talking about the Jews) Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
12 now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, in as much as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry

Jesus is awesome.

2. What you said didn't make any sense to me. Preach about God to other christians when Jesus told us to make disciples of all nations? I'm sorry, you lost me on that one.

Christians think it's fine and dandy to evangelise. The rest of us have a different view. That means christians can indulge in all the masturbatory evangelising they want without disturbing us at all.



3. Why not? Why introduce "no god" as a fact? Personally, I'd rather believe in a God than not. Even if it turns out to not be true in the end, I don't think I would've lost much, because life on Earth would have been pointless anyway.

"No god" doesn't need to be introduced - it is the default state, just like "no magic butterfly in my ear" is the default state. I'd rather believe that my wallet contains quite a bit more than £5, but it doesn't. Tough cookies for me. Reality cares not a jot about my whims. Or yours.

Christians think it's fine and dandy to evangelise. The rest of us have a different view.

Sorry to have to be the one to take you down from your pedestal, but you dont speak for the whole world. In fact, we've had several non-christians on this thread alone defend evangelism as a perfectly fine form of expression. There are many people who agree with that view. You do not speak for anyone but yourself when you say "the rest of us", despite the misleading plural tense you use.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?
Look love. Here's the thing. I don't really give a damn about what you believe. If it brings you to a state of pure happiness, so be it. But can I let you in on a little secret? There are other groups/religions that do the same! Be proud of who you are. But don't force others to join you. I'm happy as who I am. I have my own faith in the way the world works and how it doesn't. My bliss is no different from your bliss...it just has another name for it. Go ahead and believe in your truth. We have faith. It's just not your faith. Do you understand that god and allah are one and the same? And here I am, sitting in my room, looking at my images of the goddess and I know that in the end, no matter what name you give it...it will all lead us to the same place. I HAVE learned to ignore it, but when issues press themselves like this, I can't help but point a few things out. Think about what I said for a minute before you try to change someone else.

Exodus is in the pentateuch. It is the jews who have kept those texts throughout the generations (and continue to this day), not the popes.
yeah, but who translated the texts into what we call the bible? also, how many synogogues(sp) do you see matching the specifications?

yeah, but who translated the texts into what we call the bible? also, how many synogogues(sp) do you see matching the specifications?

The Jews have translated the texts into english as well as other independent sources. They all say the same thing, regardless of whether you pick up a jewish version of the pentateuch (untouched by christianity), or whether you pick up a christian translation. Synagogues do not need to match the specifications, those are the specifications for a specific temple. But synagogues are generally very nice. They arent as big as the church from the website, but they are still very nice and I have no doubt if they were as big, they would be just as nice as that church.

The Jews have translated the texts into english as well as other independent sources. They all say the same thing, regardless of whether you pick up a jewish version of the pentateuch (untouched by christianity), or whether you pick up a christian translation. Synagogues do not need to match the specifications, those are the specifications for a specific temple. But synagogues are generally very nice. They arent as big as the church from the website, but they are still very nice and I have no doubt if they were as big, they would be just as nice as that church.
i guess thats one thing you can give to them, they know how to make a nice formal temple, and not go over the top. though i have to admit, i like the look of older churches, such as notre dame, but that is purly from an archatechtual standpoint. that church didnt look good to me. looked more like a night club than a church

that church didnt look good to me. looked more like a night club than a church

Thus we reach the root of the matter. Your whole argument was founded on nothing more than your personal opinion.

Thus we reach the root of the matter. Your whole argument was founded on nothing more than your personal opinion.
concidering my argument was that the bible was ammended to make an excuse for the popes to live in a palace......

Heheh. Lol. They are one of the largest donaters to aid and charities in Singapore.

Thats a misquotation as well from the bible (concerning what Jesus says). He says to "give away all your possessions and follow me". Plus the boy was boasting to Jesus about his self-righteousness. Mark 10:17. He says "all these things I have kept from my youth".

I have seen many people give away all their possessions and then go to some funny place in India or Africa to evangelise and end up a failure. You have to have a calling. Not everyone is called to give up all their possessions. :p

nope. EVERYONE has to give them up;

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

pretty clear.

Luke 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

again, clear

true

however one is extremely more likely than the other

sure, i dont mind saying that there is a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000 that god exists. i guess within the random size and age of the universe that makes it kind of likely even. but not enough for me to bet on it at this time.

How exactly can you apply a probability matrix to God? Seeing as his existince is non emperical

Just because YOU believe in your 'god', that doesn't make it true.

Just ebcause your 'holy book' says to spread the word... doesn't make THAT true, either.

Grave, lets try and be mature about this. I didnt mention the validty of the Bible in my post. Can you please refrain from attemted thread-jacking


Nobody has a problem with Christians practising their faith (whether it be true or false)... what they DO disagree with, is you trying to convince OTHER people that THEIR belief is wrong.

That's what it comes down to - you get all kinds of bent out of shape if an Atheist (for example) tells you that the Bible is a fairytale... and yet you happily 'correct' other people's spiritual choices.


As I have said, if there is no force what is wrong. The athiests actually insist that they are right, where as I insist that I cant be certian completely as I have a little thing called faith. But Athiests refuse to accept that and lambaster points no end. If the evangilist is merely explaining the Christian faith and what it says and means then there is nothing wrong.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk.

I have yet to meet the atheist who walks up to someone at the water cooler and opens a conversation with, "Have you heard the good news that there is no god? Allow me share my nonbeliefs with you and invite you to a meeting of freethinkers like myself. Here is a free copy of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' to get you started on the right path today." I think we can agree that such behavior would be completely obnoxious and uncalled for, and people would avoid such an "evangelist" like the plague - yes?

There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

There's something extremely annoying about some idiot who takes it upon himself to tell you that his way of believing is the only way, and if you don't believe the same things he does, then all you have to look forward to is an eternity of unspeakable suffering and anguish. People get angry at those who presume to have somehow been fortunate enough to have cornered the market on "Truth" and insist on sharing information that was not asked for with everyone within earshot. It's O-B-N-O-X-I-O-U-S.

snip

Hey, maybe we should fund an atheist version of the Gideons?

Sorry to have to be the one to take you down from your pedestal, but you dont speak for the whole world. In fact, we've had several non-christians on this thread alone defend evangelism as a perfectly fine form of expression. There are many people who agree with that view. You do not speak for anyone but yourself when you say "the rest of us", despite the misleading plural tense you use.

I think you'll find he's speaking for the majority, why do think pratically all the posts on this thread are from christians or people who dont like evangelising? Would you like it if a muslim constantly kept trying to get you to convert?

I think you'll find he's speaking for the majority, why do think pratically all the posts on this thread are from christians or people who dont like evangelising? Would you like it if a muslim constantly kept trying to get you to convert?

I quite like it. The Scientologists try it too. I went in and asked them to explain what it was all about. They got very flustered and confused, and looked very uncomfortable, until we concluded that it was a life philosophy 'kind of like kung-fu'

te he he

Tremendous fun.

I also highlighted all the naughty bits and mad bits in the leaflet the JWs brought round. Like Jesus doing something to goats and sheep, I forget what...

Hey, maybe we should fund an atheist version of the Gideons?

Maybe we could - we'll call it the Giddy Ones' Bible. We'll place it in every hotel room in the free world.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I'm already a Christian. Born-again, fundamentalist, Pentacostal. I don't really feel like listening to Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door, or Mormons, or Greenpeace, or anyone else, thank you very much.

Already been baptized, thank you. And I see that the Holy Spirit has given me greater powers of spelling than Neo.

I have yet to meet the atheist who walks up to someone at the water cooler and opens a conversation with, "Have you heard the good news that there is no god? Allow me share my nonbeliefs with you and invite you to a meeting of freethinkers like myself. Here is a free copy of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' to get you started on the right path today." I think we can agree that such behavior would be completely obnoxious and uncalled for, and people would avoid such an "evangelist" like the plague - yes?

On the forum, not in the real world is what I was refering to with Athiests


There's something extremely annoying about some idiot who takes it upon himself to tell you that his way of believing is the only way, and if you don't believe the same things he does, then all you have to look forward to is an eternity of unspeakable suffering and anguish. People get angry at those who presume to have somehow been fortunate enough to have cornered the market on "Truth" and insist on sharing information that was not asked for with everyone within earshot. It's O-B-N-O-X-I-O-U-S.

You may consider it obnoxious but that does not give you any reason to call them idiots. And if you dont particually like it then why don't you simpley enter into a discussion with the person about the validty of their faith, as opposed to insulting them

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?


It is extremely annoying. That's all there really is to it. I dislike anyone who accosts me and starts talking about something I'm not interested in.

shoving "fire and brimstone" down someones throat

^^ that sounds like it would hurt lol

ok, I am a Christian, and here is what i see, and how it is.....

People put off on Christianity because it was forced on them: I am very sorry about this, because Christianity isnt to be "forced" on anyone, God has given all of us the free will to choose what we want to, He also calls us, puts the desire to know Him in our hearts, now that may sound like a contradiction, but it isnt, because God calls us, and the Holy Spirit convicts us, but it is our decision of whether we choose to hear Him and follow, or to go our own way, do our own thing, if we decide we need ground hard facts to believe, then it isnt really faith, you dont need to have faith that the ground is under your feet if you know its their, it just is, no one has to tell you about it, its their and you have the physical evidence to back it up,

however back to the point of Christians "forcing" it, its not always the case, some are put off by what we believe and if someone aproaches them abour Jesus they take it with offense and say they had it forced on them, when in reality they are just extremely put off, but there is usually a reason from what i have seen, either it was someone brought up in a home that was Christian oriented, and the parents were extremely harshe and made God out to be some big ready to smash you under his thumb angry being, or they made it seem as though they had to do 100,000,000,000 things to be "goo0d enough" for God to love them and save them,

before i go on to the point I am getting at, I will tell you what i as a Christian believe,

I am a Christian, i am not a member of any specific denomination, i do not follow a specified doctrine, i am not what most people tend to expect from a Christian, i listen to rock, i like to play rock on my electric guitar, i like dirt bikes, big loud trucks, i have a massive sense of humor, i am open minded (to a certain extent, different people have different defenitions, mine is i am willing to debate stuff, i dont just act like people are being rediculous)

I beleive that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and that God raised him from the dead on the third day and that he is alive today and i confess him as my lord and savior,

if you want more detail on what i believe, it can all be found within the front and back covers of the bible, I would suggest the living bible version, its easier to read then the king james version, written in old elizebethan english ;)

The truth about God is He DOES love you and wants a personal relationship with you, thats what salvation is about, getting to know and love God, that is what God wants, all these peopel on tv always wanting money and stuff have tainted what the truth is some of them, i cant say all have, but some are pretty obvious, if you want to know the truth about God read the bible, ask God to show you what it is that is so special about His book, and if your sincere He will show you,

as for the water cooler comment, that is a reasonable point, if people do in fact just up and plow it all on and they have already rehearsed what they have to say, thats kind of impersonal, telling people about God shouldnt be a sales pitch, if your going to talk to someone about God you should let God lead you in doing so,

one thing i have to disagree about though is the point of keeping your belief to yourself and not telling anyone, thats contrary to the word of God as said before in this thread, and jsut because you dont want to hear it doesnt necessarily mean that others dont want to or shouldnt be allowed to hear it, if someone is indeed genuinely harrasing you, thats one thing, but if all they are doing is calmly telling you about God and arent yelling "Hell Fire and All your Base!" then there isnt anything wrong with what they are doing,

anyways thats all for now, ttyl and God bless you!

Oh, the irony of being annoyed with people using freedom of speech to criticise what others do with the same freedom of speech. :rolleyes:
ironically, isn't that how we're defining freedom out of freedom in America? i mean, by all standards no one has any rights, because everyone has every right.

Wow! This can be tough stuff. I'm getting ready to graduate from Bible college, and I'm all about evangelism. But yes, it bothers a lot of people. I do happen to believe through my studies of Scripture that you either go to Heaven or hell when you die. You go to Heaven by accepting Christ through faith to forgive your sins; you go to hell by rejecting His gift. Why that's so offensive to people, I'm not sure, but I know that many Christians are offensive to non Christians, and Christians need to be more careful. I love non Christians, and most have said they respect my faith, even though they don't agree with it. Probably because I don't force them. God gave us free will, and Christians need to realize that if someone is going to become a Christian, it must be done out of their own free will, not because they were guilted or forced into it.

If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

You can't ignore some f'wit who steals a bit of your life by knocking on your door in order to inform you that you are bad and destined to rot in hell. I always try to be polite, but it takes a minimum of 5 minutes, and it happens several times a week - LDS, jehovahs, 7th Day Adventists etc - all bloody christian. I'm almost looking forward to a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist, just for the variety.

I don't open my door if it's somebody important they will call me before. But I got 5 min if I want to use it to those nice dressed mormons if I don't they can march to end of their lifes and see the truth. And yes I did got issues because of my school years I was fed religion with a spoon,then it ended and I kinda got into it,not just christianity but all kinds of religions and I liked religion classes with history. And now I just look everything eyes open I got my bible that I'm planning to read someday and just wander oh yes that sweet wandering.

The reason I find evangelical, proselytizing Christians to be such a pain is because of their sureness that they're right. A great deal of the "prosetylized" are already Christians of one sort or another, and of course they wouldn't be members of their particular denomination if they didn't think it was the right one. I, for one, am Catholic. I regard all Protestant denominations as errant and false to a degree. The last thing I need is some would-be Evangelist to the Papists telling me that I'm going to Hell if I don't give up the religion I've had my entire life. The job of a Christian is to witness to Christ - not go around handing out pamphlets about their his sect's own interpretation of Him. People come to Christ because He calls them - not because some self-righteous zealot gives them a guilt trip. Proselytizing, at least in the intrusive, black-and-white, I'm-right-you're-wrong way it is currently practiced, is not an asset but a threat to the Faith.

Oh yes just remember one thing: How can something that comes from the God can divide into so many? I can think one reason:Human nature, you can't hide it even in religion. It comes up.I should explain myself: I mean there is only one God but how then it's important how you pray,sing,preach? Should it only matter to serve the God not to bow to HUMANS view about some part of christianity. Ah my beautiful english.

If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

The last idiot who tried to evangelize me waylaid me while I was walking down the street from work to grab some lunch. He was standing on a corner with a bible and trying to tell anyone who walked by all about God. I walked wide around him... but I got trapped by the light turning and had to wait and sure enough, over he wandered.

I told him I wasn't interested.

He went into a big speil about all that Jesus had done for me.

I told him to go away.

He said "what are you, an atheist?" and then, I swear to her Invisible Pinkness, went into this speech about how his church even had people who used to be atheists in it... you know, axe murders and rapists and stuff... so he knows what it's like to be someone like me.

:headbang:

If the light hadn't changed shortly thereafter allowing me to leave the moron behind to torment someone else he very likely would have got his empty little skull soundly thumped with his own bible until he demonstrated he had developed a proper understanding of the words "go away, I'm not interested".

You want to proselytize people? Talk to someone who wanders into your church LOOKING to be proselytized.

People hate being forced into something.

Last time someone tried to convert me I turned atheist because I didn't believe the stuff he swore was true about god, and he knew better than me I wasn't too religious anyways. Another thing is that every religion thinks they are right. They are so firmly rooted in their beliefs they would never think otherwise, and they also would NEVER think that someone else might be just as passionate about their beliefs, even if their beliefs ARE in science.

I don't mind religion, I don't mind light religious discussion, I don't think religion is wrong or bad, but I absolutely HATE evangelists.

Two words: Noise Pollution.

It's as bad as people who run around town with their speakers blasting the entire neighborhood.

If Christians can demand that their children not hear four-letter words on TV, why the hell can't they keep their Damn and Hell and Mary the hell away from everyone else's children?

I just cannot stand evangelical Christians.

Running around witnessing and creating disciples of all nations was probably entirely appropriate in the first century when Christianity was a small movement with few members. However just about everyone's heard about it now, so it's up to them to make their own decision about what they believe (or don't, as the case may be).

I dislike proselytizing as much as I dislike the people standing on street corners trying to get me to donate to their charity/apply for their credit card etc. It's an invasion of my privacy and my right to be left the hell alone. The message itself doesn't bother me - I happen to be a Christian already, but they never seem to take 'go away, I'm already converted' for an answer. It's the utter lack of respect for others that's inappropriate in all these cases.

I'm sure Jesus said something somewhere about not running around making a big show of what a fantastic believer and works-doer you are.

I think the thread starter makes some good points about people that think evangalizing is something fundementally wrong or evil. Athiests should not stereotype or pigeonhole Christians and vice versa. Baseless judgement by either is never constructive.

As a Christian myself, I get irked everytime I hear the term "apologetics" used in Christian communities as a means of spreading the Word, because I don't know anyone who made the choice to follow God soley because someone else defended and "proved" Christianity. It can reduce evangelizing to an impersonal debate or science, both of which religions are not known for.

I will be brutally honest here.

I have no problem with a person's religion when it stays between them and God. Quite the opposite, I personally admire such conviction. But evangelicals of all faiths are by their own definition committed to selling their beliefs on the cheap for what amounts to little more than browny points. That to me is a very dishonorable and ultimately self-defeating motivation. I don't necessarily blame the evangelicals for their actions, but I do regard their intentions as misguided and unhealthy.

Personally, I feel as though the urge to convince others of the righteousness of your own personal beliefs indicates that you yourself are unsure about them. I have found that people who truly believe in something do not feel the need to convince others of the merits of those beliefs. Whereas people who are crusading to convince others by any means necessary seem to be trying to convince themselves as well. It is still between them and God, but they are dragging the outside world into their own affairs.

So I would ask the evangelical to consider the possibility that believing in something is not as simple as turning on a light switch. For millenia monks have dedicated their entire lives to the meditative search for true faith, and many have admitted failure. If you find yourself obsessed with convincing the entire world of the validity of a belief of yours, please take a moment to ask yourself whether that belief is truly spiritual in nature.

I think you'll find he's speaking for the majority, why do think pratically all the posts on this thread are from christians or people who dont like evangelising? Would you like it if a muslim constantly kept trying to get you to convert?

I propose that Lazy Hippies be put on the opt-in evangelising list - christians of the world, LH has declared that evangelising is fine and dandy, have at them.

I think the thread starter makes some good points about people that think evangalizing is something fundementally wrong or evil. Athiests should not stereotype or pigeonhole Christians and vice versa. Baseless judgement by either is never constructive.


Nobody has claimed evangelising is evil in and of itself. As stated by others earlier on, by all means evangelise the hell out of people who walk into a church *asking* to be evangelised at. Otherwise, shut the hell up about your silly stories.

why do think pratically all the posts on this thread are from christians or people who dont like evangelising?

Because its entitled "What is wrong with Christian evangilism/prolythising" duh. People have a tendency to click only on links that sound interesting to them. Obviously the type of people who will read this thread are those either against or in favor of it, not the masses of people who dont care.

By your logic there is no such thing as being converted [to any religion].
If you believe or disbelieve in something you cannot choose to not do that...so if you say people can convert to Christianity, then the same can be said for atheism.
~~~
By the way, I think that many people are missing the point Neo Cannen was trying to get accross...
It isn't that us Christians should do this...it's that other religions get angry at us if we do it, then turn around and do it themselves.

[BTW, I don't do this and I also hate anybody who does this.]

First - I'm not sure it is entriely true that "other religions get angry at us if we do it, then turn around and do it themselves"... since I don't see a large Atheistic Evangelism movement...

Second - you said, "get angry at us", which makes me think you are identifying yourself as Christian... yet, you then go on to say, "I also hate anybody who does this".... which doesn't seem like a very Christian perspective.

On the forum, not in the real world is what I was refering to with Athiests

What all of us here in the forum practice is called "debate" and we obviously enter into it willingly. If you're only talking about forum debate, I'm not sure what the issue is - is it just that they don't agree with you? :confused:


You may consider it obnoxious but that does not give you any reason to call them idiots. And if you dont particually like it then why don't you simpley enter into a discussion with the person about the validty of their faith, as opposed to insulting them

I have never in my entire life insulted anyone who was evangelizing - although I have declined to discuss the subject of religion when they come uninvited to my door, and then I have closed the door in their pious faces. I'm not sure if you would consider that an insult, but then, they have no business accosting me in my home for the purpose of converting me to their religion. By the way, I only refer to them as idiots in forum debates, and only then just to express my strong feelings on the matter.

As for being accosted during my breaks at work or during work time, I have every right not to spend that time discussing the validity of their religious beliefs with them - it's my break time and my work time, after all! They will not dictate to me how I will spend that time, thank you very much! I have no reason to try to change their beliefs, as I believe spirituality is an intensely personal matter, and something that should pretty much be kept to oneself unless asked.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition in the South. If you ever want to get your fill of the "hellfire and brimstone" method of preaching, just visit a Southern Baptist church. :)

You're right about lots of people being "christians" because they're afraid not to be. But fear is never a good reason for belief, IMHO. Take the fear away and what do you have? Not much.

I could have calmly, rationally, and intelligently explained why I was a Christian a few years back, but I no longer consider myself to be one in the modern American sense of the term.

BTW ... I'm not afraid of the dark, primarily because of the same reason that I "fear no evil."

"Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for lo, I am the evilest son-of-a-bitch in the valley!" :D

I agree with everything you said, with the qualification that I am a Godless Heathen - thus I differ with the thought behind your 'I no longer consider myself to be one in the modern American sense of the term'... and the the qualification that I was not raised in the South... but I do now live right in the middle of the 'hellfire-and-brimstone' states.

Okay. Look at that second sentence for juuuuust a second. Now think about it...the Trinity Broadcasting Network...700 Club...Jerry Falwell...Oral (and Anal) Roberts...Benny Hinn...Casey Treat...Promise Keepers (no relation to Trapper Keepers, btw)...I think, though I might be crazy, but I THINK that the "left-wing" opposition to Christianity isn't applied to all religions because all religions aren't so constantly and consistently annoying. There is no Buddhist Broadcasting Corporation, and if there were, I am damn sure they wouldn't ask me for money.

Boycotts, protests, lobbyists -- fellas, you want in on the American political scheme? Then pay your way like the rest of us. The next church to publicly endorse or condemn any candidate or political measure gets TAXED. You don't like it? Broadcast all you want, but keep your politics within your pulpit and out of DC. Taxes or tolerance, which will it be? [If only I had the power to make this possible....]

I'd vote for it.

Even if it turns out to not be true in the end, I don't think I would've lost much, because life on Earth would have been pointless anyway.

I find this almost unbearably sad.

If the ONLY thing that made my life worthwhile was my faith... *sigh*. :(

Sorry to have to be the one to take you down from your pedestal, but you dont speak for the whole world. In fact, we've had several non-christians on this thread alone defend evangelism as a perfectly fine form of expression. There are many people who agree with that view. You do not speak for anyone but yourself when you say "the rest of us", despite the misleading plural tense you use.

Actually - I agree with the idea that most people do not want to be evangelised upon... and I think it probably applies to most Christians, also.

I have a JW friend who meets some of the rudest responses to his solicitiations... from Christians. Something of hypocrisy, perhaps?

Grave, lets try and be mature about this. I didnt mention the validty of the Bible in my post. Can you please refrain from attemted thread-jacking


How was I NOT being mature? If the Christian justification for forcing their story down the throats of other people, is the Bible... then the Bible is the issue. I don't believe in your 'god'. I don't believe in your 'holy book'.

Thus - it doesn't matter to me that your 'holy book' says you should tell me about your 'god'... because, as far as I am concerned, they are both fictional... and are infringing on my personal space, by having to listen to your reading your fairy-tales when I've already told you I don't want to know.

Not YOU particularly, you understand... that's a general 'you' of biblical militia.


As I have said, if there is no force what is wrong. The athiests actually insist that they are right, where as I insist that I cant be certian completely as I have a little thing called faith. But Athiests refuse to accept that and lambaster points no end. If the evangilist is merely explaining the Christian faith and what it says and means then there is nothing wrong.

I have almost no idea what this says. Sorry.

It looks like English, but it walks like a duck...

I have a JW friend who meets some of the rudest responses to his solicitiations... from Christians. Something of hypocrisy, perhaps?

I've had JWs ask me many times "have you found Jesus?"

And when I say yes, I have, they then proceed to talk to me as though I haven't.

I have a JW friend who meets some of the rudest responses to his solicitiations... from Christians. Something of hypocrisy, perhaps?

I try not to be rude, but it is difficult sometimes. Not because I am truly angry that someone is trying to talk to me about their faith (and if that's all it was, I'd be happy to talk), but because I know that people like that do much more harm than good.

I've had JWs ask me many times "have you found Jesus?"

And when I say yes, I have, they then proceed to talk to me as though I haven't.

There are different ways of 'spreading a message'.

To me - the method I respect least, is one person assuming that the other person is stupid, and giving them a lecture on how to right their evil ways.

Whereas, I have a deal of respect for those who discuss their religion... and I mean 'discuss'. I have spent many, many hours talking with Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Witnesses, even (that spectrally non-denominational entity) Christians, about their beliefs. I find the whole thing fascinating... but ONLY as long as it is an exchange. When that other person decides to make 'that jump'... that I must be somehow ignorant.. they usually find my interest fading fast.

I try not to be rude, but it is difficult sometimes. Not because I am truly angry that someone is trying to talk to me about their faith (and if that's all it was, I'd be happy to talk), but because I know that people like that do much more harm than good.

Evangelists?

Evangelists?

Yes. Anyone who approaches the spreading of the gospel from the attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, and you are going to listen to me whether you are interested or not," is doing much more harm to their own cause than good. If someone is open to a discussion of religion, you may alter their viewpoints and you may not - the ultimate decision is obviously up to them. However, if you forcefully assert that you are right (often as they do, giving false information or demonstrating that they have studied their own religion less than the person they are attempting to "save"), all you are doing is turning someone off to whatever you have to say.

Yes. Anyone who approaches the spreading of the gospel from the attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, and you are going to listen to me whether you are interested or not," is doing much more harm to their own cause than good. If someone is open to a discussion of religion, you may alter their viewpoints and you may not - the ultimate decision is obviously up to them. However, if you forcefully assert that you are right (often as they do, giving false information or demonstrating that they have studied their own religion less than the person they are attempting to "save"), all you are doing is turning someone off to whatever you have to say.

Ah. Then, I totally agree. :)

I'm not bothered but a lot of ppl I know don't like the whole 'you don't believe in Jesus you burn in Hell' schpiel. (I can refute this w/text from the Bible but I won't go into it now)
then you have nothing to back it up. Plain and simple. If you give me the verse and the book of the Bible i will prove what you are saying to be incorrect. However, i am uncertain as to what you are refering; that you can support the claim that you will burn in hell if you don't believe in jesus, or that you can refute the statement that you would burn in hell if you don't believe in jesus? How can refute one of the most obvious purpose of the new testimant (or Bible) buy using the Bible against itself, that would be impossible.

There are different ways of 'spreading a message'.

To me - the method I respect least, is one person assuming that the other person is stupid, and giving them a lecture on how to right their evil ways.

Whereas, I have a deal of respect for those who discuss their religion... and I mean 'discuss'. I have spent many, many hours talking with Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Witnesses, even (that spectrally non-denominational entity) Christians, about their beliefs. I find the whole thing fascinating... but ONLY as long as it is an exchange. When that other person decides to make 'that jump'... that I must be somehow ignorant.. they usually find my interest fading fast.

How would giving someone a lecture on how to right their evil ways, mean that the person giving the lecture is assuming that the other person is stupid? this is not always the case.

How would giving someone a lecture on how to right their evil ways, mean that the person giving the lecture is assuming that the other person is stupid? this is not always the case.
He did not say it was ... re read it

He said that WHEN people make that jump to thinking he is ignorant then he looses interest (he does not say they always do)

then you have nothing to back it up. Plain and simple. If you give me the verse and the book of the Bible i will prove what you are saying to be incorrect. However, i am uncertain as to what you are refering; that you can support the claim that you will burn in hell if you don't believe in jesus, or that you can refute the statement that you would burn in hell if you don't believe in jesus? How can refute one of the most obvious purpose of the new testimant (or Bible) buy using the Bible against itself, that would be impossible.
Psst re read revelations (hint the 1000 year wait till re-judgment based on works after Armageddon and the setting up of the new Jerusalem )

Also Revelation 20:12-13
Revelation 3:1-6

How would giving someone a lecture on how to right their evil ways, mean that the person giving the lecture is assuming that the other person is stupid? this is not always the case.

Giving a lecture implies that the person giving the lecture is in an elevated position - something that a humble person would never claim.

Having a discussion, on the other hand, puts both people on an even keel. They both realize that they may be wrong, they both think that they are right, but both are willing and able to listen to (and possibly attempt to refute, if they disagree) the other's view.

How would giving someone a lecture on how to right their evil ways, mean that the person giving the lecture is assuming that the other person is stupid? this is not always the case.

Because it assumes that the person being lectured 1) Is unaware of the Christian view of morality, 2) Has the same definitions of good and evil as the lecturer, and 3) Is unaware that they're doing "evil" according to the lecturer's code.

I am not Christian. However, I'm flattered when my Christian friends pray for me. It means they care about me. I don't mind them giving me pamphlets or New Testaments. I do, however, mind being lectured to. Just because I'm not a Christian, people seem to assume that I know nothing about the religion. I've read the Bible more often than many of my Christian friends-- in several different translations. I have a veritable library full of the classic works on Christianity-- Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, etc. I know the theory and the ethics of the religion. I could conduct lectures on it, and I'd rather not listen to lectures from people who are less-educated on the subject than I.

I'm also not fond of Jehovah's Witnesses. Why? Because they're denying me my personal freedoms. They're tresspassing on my property and taking up my time. I wouldn't mind them leaving copies of the Watchtower and then leaving, but I have yet to find a way to get them to leave without being rude.

I spent a decade contemplating my faith. I'm not likely to change it now, just because someone says theirs is better. However, I understand that they believe they're converting people out of love, so I'm not going to object too stringently. Just... remember that yours might not be the only way.

Because it assumes that the person being lectured 1) Is unaware of the Christian view of morality, 2) Has the same definitions of good and evil as the lecturer, and 3) Is unaware that they're doing "evil" according to the lecturer's code.

I am not Christian. However, I'm flattered when my Christian friends pray for me. It means they care about me. I don't mind them giving me pamphlets or New Testaments. I do, however, mind being lectured to. Just because I'm not a Christian, people seem to assume that I know nothing about the religion. I've read the Bible more often than many of my Christian friends-- in several different translations. I have a veritable library full of the classic works on Christianity-- Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, etc. I know the theory and the ethics of the religion. I could conduct lectures on it, and I'd rather not listen to lectures from people who are less-educated on the subject than I.

I'm also not fond of Jehovah's Witnesses. Why? Because they're denying me my personal freedoms. They're tresspassing on my property and taking up my time. I wouldn't mind them leaving copies of the Watchtower and then leaving, but I have yet to find a way to get them to leave without being rude.

I spent a decade contemplating my faith. I'm not likely to change it now, just because someone says theirs is better. However, I understand that they believe they're converting people out of love, so I'm not going to object too stringently. Just... remember that yours might not be the only way.

You will find a lot of us are the same way around here … and you would love grave_n_idle :)
BTW welcome to the forums

I am not Christian. However, I'm flattered when my Christian friends pray for me. It means they care about me. I don't mind them giving me pamphlets or New Testaments. I do, however, mind being lectured to. Just because I'm not a Christian, people seem to assume that I know nothing about the religion. I've read the Bible more often than many of my Christian friends-- in several different translations. I have a veritable library full of the classic works on Christianity-- Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, etc. I know the theory and the ethics of the religion. I could conduct lectures on it, and I'd rather not listen to lectures from people who are less-educated on the subject than I.

Are you, by chance, familiar with Abelard? It is very rare that I find anyone (Christian or non-Christian) familiar with his theology.

I spent a decade contemplating my faith. I'm not likely to change it now, just because someone says theirs is better. However, I understand that they believe they're converting people out of love, so I'm not going to object too stringently. Just... remember that yours might not be the only way.

I like you. =)

What all of us here in the forum practice is called "debate" and we obviously enter into it willingly. If you're only talking about forum debate, I'm not sure what the issue is - is it just that they don't agree with you? :confused:

Whenever I attempt to explain Christianity to someone here, they tell me to "stop forcing it on them". Yet when Athiests do the same thing, no such reprisal is given

Whenever I attempt to explain Christianity to someone here, they tell me to "stop forcing it on them". Yet when Athiests do the same thing, no such reprisal is given

Maybe you just aren't noticing it?

I refute anyone and everyone who tries to push personal opinion and faith as fact.

I work in a highly conservative store that is part of a national chain of breakfast-style restaurants, and also sells crappy furniture a kitsh that no-one wants. So, you can bet your ass that every sunday I can walk in with my pockets empty and at the end of my shift I'm going home with half a dozen, maybe more, of those little pamphlets. Some are just quotes, these I relegate to a shoebox in the closet, but the best ones, the ones that go on display on the corkboard by the phone, are the comics. Now, I'm not a Christian, nor do I make any claims to the contrary, but some of these things are outright ludicrous in the assumption of absolute ignorance they place upon their readers. The grammar often sucks, words are misspelled and the artwork is comparable to that of a cross-eyed twelve year old. Of course, I make all of my friends read them, and then we have a solid round of Jesus bashing. Man, was that guy a queer.

Edited to add: As atheism is based upon reason and logic, it is only to be expected that they should want to philosophize and debate. As anyone who has learned anything from the morning star would know, you don't attack God on his own turf, you wait for him to come into yours, unless you and God are playing some GTA:SA, in which case, get the AK and some body armor, and stay low to the ground and close to an alleyway, and God's turf is yours.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.

Way to put it. Atheism isn't like an occult or religion. You can't force yourself into believing in a giant, invisible man in the sky.

Not believing is really not that labour intensive. Just like not believing in gnomes doesn't really take any sort of action.

Are you saying you don't belive in Gnomes?

Are you, by chance, familiar with Abelard? It is very rare that I find anyone (Christian or non-Christian) familiar with his theology.

As in 'Heloise and'? Dialectician who believed it wasn't the sin itself, but the intent to sin? I <3 Abelard! ^_^

I work in a highly conservative store that is part of a national chain of breakfast-style restaurants, and also sells crappy furniture a kitsh that no-one wants. So, you can bet your ass that every sunday I can walk in with my pockets empty and at the end of my shift I'm going home with half a dozen, maybe more, of those little pamphlets. Some are just quotes, these I relegate to a shoebox in the closet, but the best ones, the ones that go on display on the corkboard by the phone, are the comics. Now, I'm not a Christian, nor do I make any claims to the contrary, but some of these things are outright ludicrous in the assumption of absolute ignorance they place upon their readers. The grammar often sucks, words are misspelled and the artwork is comparable to that of a cross-eyed twelve year old. Of course, I make all of my friends read them, and then we have a solid round of Jesus bashing. Man, was that guy a queer.

Heh, my friends of all faiths and I get some of our greatest laughs from Jack Chick Comics. (http://www.chick.com/default.asp) Who comes up with this stuff? It's hysterical! I swear the author is a secret underground agent for the Organisation of Discrediting Fanatics!

As in 'Heloise and'? Dialectician who believed it wasn't the sin itself, but the intent to sin? I <3 Abelard! ^_^

YAY!

I am particularly fond of his theory of atonement. That the purpose of Christ was to bring followers to God out of love, rather than fear. (no more carrot-stick mentality, in other words).

Heh, my friends of all faiths and I get some of our greatest laughs from Jack Chick Comics. (http://www.chick.com/default.asp) Who comes up with this stuff? It's hysterical! I swear the author is a secret underground agent for the Organisation of Discrediting Fanatics!

I love Jack Chick! He's so funny! And he taught me so much about D&D. Now I just have to figure out when my DM is going to induct me into the coven and give me magic powers. =)

The biggest thing that bothers me about evangelists is that, for some reason, they assume that the reason I'm not Christian is because I've never heard the story of Jesus or read anything from the Bible.

Hello, news flash: Western culture is inundated with Christian influence. You'd have to live in a hole in the ground or be completely obtuse not to know anything about it.

Then comes the next assumption, that since I obviously have been exposed to it, I don't accept it because I don't understand it.

Strike two. I'm an intelligent, rational being. To assume that I'm wrong because you're so sure you're right is, well, wrong.

Then comes the pity party. The whole holier-than-thou attitude when I politely rebuff their attempts to convert me. There's always the whole "You poor, ignorant fool" look, followed by them saying something along the lines of "God bless, I'll pray for you." That sort of condescending attitude isn't going to win any brownie points with me.

So, there you have it. That pretty much covers the basics of why I have a negative attitude toward evangelical Christians in general.

Because the belief itself, now, is insulting to most, and very much outdated. Who wants to worship a religion that belittles women nowadays?(other than men)

Evangelical Christians can be evangelical if they want, as long as they recognise the right of all other religions and all other non religious views, to also be evangelical if they want to be.

The biggest thing that bothers me about evangelists is that, for some reason, they assume that the reason I'm not Christian is because I've never heard the story of Jesus or read anything from the Bible.

Hello, news flash: Western culture is inundated with Christian influence. You'd have to live in a hole in the ground or be completely obtuse not to know anything about it.

Then comes the next assumption, that since I obviously have been exposed to it, I don't accept it because I don't understand it.

Strike two. I'm an intelligent, rational being. To assume that I'm wrong because you're so sure you're right is, well, wrong.

Then comes the pity party. The whole holier-than-thou attitude when I politely rebuff their attempts to convert me. There's always the whole "You poor, ignorant fool" look, followed by them saying something along the lines of "God bless, I'll pray for you." That sort of condescending attitude isn't going to win any brownie points with me.

So, there you have it. That pretty much covers the basics of why I have a negative attitude toward evangelical Christians in general.

You still haven't really given a reason why you choose not to believe in the God of the Bible. Most Christians, including myself, are simply baffled by the fact that people like you, being (self-proclaimed) intelligent, rational beings, would choose not to believe.

Simple. God doesn't make rational sense.

I love Jack Chick! He's so funny! And he taught me so much about D&D. Now I just have to figure out when my DM is going to induct me into the coven and give me magic powers. =)

Darn that Jack Chick! He's letting people in on the secrets! Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a DM to choose who's worthy of magic powers when everyone is on good behaviour so they can get their powers? DMs of the world, unite against the secret-revealer!

You still haven't really given a reason why you choose not to believe in the God of the Bible. Most Christians, including myself, are simply baffled by the fact that people like you, being (self-proclaimed) intelligent, rational beings, would choose not to believe.

Only someone very full of themselves and convinced of their own infallibility would be baffled by someone disagreeing with them.

Most Christians I know are neither.

Maybe you should revise that to only talk about yourself.

Simple. God doesn't make rational sense.

Are you going to explain that or not?

The world clearly was not created 7 days.
You cannot create matter out of nothing, so he couldn't have if he'd tried.
The Bible contradicts itself, and contains a number of impossibilities.

:headbang: I hate this.
OK(and that too)!Now let's see what is "God" ,simply-an answer.When some thing goes wrong people start to ask "Why?" ,when there is no scientific answer people turn to God ,from witch there is only one sure thing-religion is a philosophy and when people don't like the answers(how much time did I say that word?) they become ateist ,or people with no belief(need something new).In politic's the religion is a tool from witch the people could be manipulated and use for the needed purpose.In the bible there is too many pagan symbol which make from Christ one copy/paste religion and that makes my sick.

You still haven't really given a reason why you choose not to believe in the God of the Bible. Most Christians, including myself, are simply baffled by the fact that people like you, being (self-proclaimed) intelligent, rational beings, would choose not to believe.
I will come round your house and explain why I'm a Pagan.
I'll tell you the truth of Paganism.
When you've heard the truth you will be saved from your ignorance and will be happier.
If you don't convert at once I'll visit you evry day until you agree to join me in a Pagan rite (Beltane is always fun).
Then you will see the light and will convert. You'll realise that what you've always thought of as true was actually propaganda designed to control your thoughts.
You will frollick naked in the woods with your new found love of nature!!!

OK. That feeling you've got now is how non Christians feel when we're told to believe in the"god of the bible". Repeatedly. As previously stated it's a belief nothing more. I can no more believe in your god than you can believe in my gods.
So don't call me.....andd I promise not to visit

Whenever I attempt to explain Christianity to someone here, they tell me to "stop forcing it on them". Yet when Athiests do the same thing, no such reprisal is given

Typically, atheists make these types of remarks in response to unwanted attempts by Christians to proselytize. Now, if they ask you for your opinion and then tell you to stop forcing it on them when you give them only what they've asked for - you would certainly have a point. Please point out where this has happened.

I will come round your house and explain why I'm a Pagan.
I'll tell you the truth of Paganism.
When you've heard the truth you will be saved from your ignorance and will be happier.
If you don't convert at once I'll visit you evry day until you agree to join me in a Pagan rite (Beltane is always fun).
Then you will see the light and will convert. You'll realise that what you've always thought of as true was actually propaganda designed to control your thoughts.
You will frollick naked in the woods with your new found love of nature!!!

OK. That feeling you've got now is how non Christians feel when we're told to believe in the"god of the bible". Repeatedly. As previously stated it's a belief nothing more. I can no more believe in your god than you can believe in my gods.
So don't call me.....andd I promise not to visit

But you left out one crucial step - you forgot to threaten Sonycism with eternal torment and unspeakable suffering if he/she fails to convert. Oh, but wait - we Pagans have failed to include the "fear factor" in any of our philosophies - uh, nevermind.

:D :D :D depends on how its done.

when someone requests it, its fine

if its done without request its the religious equivalent of spam.


Amen to that !!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two different types of religious viewpoints:

1) a vague belief that, maybe, there is some sort of supernatural/cosmic sort of thing which for want of a better word might be called "God";

and

2) a very specific belief in (one particular subcult of) a particular religion, e.g. (First Church of Jesus Christ, Monster-Trucker) Christianity.

Version 1) is intellectually respectable, if ultimately futile. The question is unanswered and unanswerable. Now, to me, that's a good reason for not bothering about it, but people are free to choose their own little hobbies.

Version 2) is NOT, generally speaking, intellectually respectable, certainly not with reference to Christianity (or other textually-obsessed religions like Islam or Judaism). These are beliefs built up around fables, myths and legends: in short, they demand literal belief in things that don't happen. Stories about people magically parting seas, walking on water, ascending into heaven etc. can be dismissed out of hand as examples of such TTDH. Other TTDH include enchanted sleeps; cursed spinning-wheels; magic swords; magic rings; talking snakes; flying pigs; and so on and so forth.

There are some -- not many -- manifestations of version 2) which are intellectually respectable. A good example is Buddhism, which has at its heart the getout clause that everything is an illusion anyway. Essentially, any one which does not insist on literality (or, better still, admits that it's all just stories but maintains that it forms a channel or guide to personal meditation -- a bit like the attitude of some Hindus towards statues of their gods) can be jusdged to be itellectually respectable.

"Atheism", or lack of belief/concern/interest in the whole pointless exercise of running around seeking answers to unanswerable questions, I do not count as a religious viewpoint.

There are two different types of religious viewpoints:

1) a vague belief that, maybe, there is some sort of supernatural/cosmic sort of thing which for want of a better word might be called "God";

and

2) a very specific belief in (one particular subcult of) a particular religion, e.g. (First Church of Jesus Christ, Monster-Trucker) Christianity.

Version 1) is intellectually respectable, if ultimately futile. The question is unanswered and unanswerable. Now, to me, that's a good reason for not bothering about it, but people are free to choose their own little hobbies.

Version 2) is NOT, generally speaking, intellectually respectable, certainly not with reference to Christianity (or other textually-obsessed religions like Islam or Judaism). These are beliefs built up around fables, myths and legends: in short, they demand literal belief in things that don't happen. Stories about people magically parting seas, walking on water, ascending into heaven etc. can be dismissed out of hand as examples of such TTDH. Other TTDH include enchanted sleeps; cursed spinning-wheels; magic swords; magic rings; talking snakes; flying pigs; and so on and so forth.

There are some -- not many -- manifestations of version 2) which are intellectually respectable. A good example is Buddhism, which has at its heart the getout clause that everything is an illusion anyway. Essentially, any one which does not insist on literality (or, better still, admits that it's all just stories but maintains that it forms a channel or guide to personal meditation -- a bit like the attitude of some Hindus towards statues of their gods) can be jusdged to be itellectually respectable.

"Atheism", or lack of belief/concern/interest in the whole pointless exercise of running around seeking answers to unanswerable questions, I do not count as a religious viewpoint.

Not all Christianity implores you to treat the Bible as a literal text - in fact, if you actually study the Bible you'll see it's mostly metaphorical. Also, your 'TTDH' argument can be dismissed out of hand - if the respective deity does indeed exist, those acts are entirely credible.

The realproblem with most religions is that people tend to misinterpret their own holy books (and get incredibly pissed off when you tell them this). Catholicism is a prime example.

Religion is not generally at fault - religious people are.

And atheism is a religious view - it requires just as much faith as any religion.

It's been generally stated - evangelism is disliked because it's trying to sell a religion. To me, religion is supposed to be profound and spiritual, and having someone sell it at me really doesn't work. As to why I'm not a Christian, it's because i studied Judaism and observed the inherent contradictions. What I now believe is that all religions have some valid truth, some bull and some self-righteous justification. So I have picked the religion that seemed most right to me and I'm happy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0311_030311_invisible2.html

Iviche, however, tells how contact between the missionaries and isolated indigenous peoples can be just as devastating as contact with loggers, oil, and gas companies, or others planning to extract resources from the Amazon.
His tribe was contacted when his father was a boy. The missionaries lured his people by dropping machetes from an airplane, later coming by boat and dropping clothing. At first, the indigenous people burned the clothing and accepted the machetes.
After time passed, a missionary would travel to different indigenous settlements and talk with them using people from evangelized tribes to help communicate. Eventually, the tribes were grouped into one mission.
"After they grouped them, they began to use clothes," said Iviche. "The clothing was the cause of diseases, due to the soaps and other things such as the iron, or the machete."
Iviche says his ancestors lasted in the mission for four or five years. "After that they disintegrated because the elders started dying," he said. "Like an epidemic, both kids and older people were dying." Iviche says that the population of the villages went from 30,000 to 1,500.

Not all Christianity implores you to treat the Bible as a literal text - in fact, if you actually study the Bible you'll see it's mostly metaphorical. Also, your 'TTDH' argument can be dismissed out of hand - if the respective deity does indeed exist, those acts are entirely credible.

Hmm. The argument that "if the respective deity does indeed exist, those acts are entirely credible" is not terribly convincing. If Superman is real, then he can really bounce bullets off his chest. Should I then believe in Superman?

I agree, though, that several versions of the rather loosely-defined broad set of beliefs labelled for convenience as "Christianity" -- including many large, mainstream ones like Roman Catholicism -- do not insist on a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. However, they pretty much all *do* insist that Jesus was the Deity Incarnate, and that he died and came back to life. Which, if you study the Bible and Christian theology in general, tends to imply a belief in Original Sin -- otherwise, what was the point of the crucifixion? From what did we need to be Saved? Which brings up the issue of why a putative God would make things that needed to be saved in the first place, and why we would need to be saved in such a peculiar way. If people want to believe in a God, or in some sort of universal essence beyond the physical, then fine: but when you start trying to make such a nebulous notion fit the plot of a 2,000-year-old story, you end up with a stupid, small, petty-minded creature with a whole series of wildly erratic personality problems. Which doesn't really make the grade as a Supreme Being, in my opinion.

The real problem with most religions is that people tend to misinterpret their own holy books (and get incredibly pissed off when you tell them this). Catholicism is a prime example.

Religion is not generally at fault - religious people are.

And atheism is a religious view - it requires just as much faith as any religion.

A religion has no independent existence. It exists only as a series of notions in the minds of its adherents. Therefore, "religious people" and "religion" are synonymous. What gives you the right to tell people that they've "misinterpreted" their holy books? Since it's all a matter of interpretation -- or faith -- what makes your interpretation right and theirs wrong?

And atheism does not require any faith at all. I don't go around "not believing in god". I can see that textual, conventional religions -- e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. -- are obviously merely collections of myths and legends, and no more worthy of belief than Norse myths, or Aboriginal myths, or Egyptian myths, or any of the other enormous basket of entertaining nonsense our species has made up over the millennia. The idea that one particular interpretation of one particular subset of these myths is actually literally true is so bizarre as to be laughable. As for the vaguer idea of "something beyond" -- it's unanswerable, untestable, unknowable, and I can't see any point in worrying about it. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why would anybody care?

However, they pretty much all *do* insist that Jesus was the Deity Incarnate, and that he died and came back to life. Which, if you study the Bible and Christian theology in general, tends to imply a belief in Original Sin -- otherwise, what was the point of the crucifixion?

You have obviously only read the popular theology. Try looking into Abelard. Try looking into quite a few modern theologians.

You have obviously only read the popular theology. Try looking into Abelard. Try looking into quite a few modern theologians.

There is such a thing as "popular theology"?

Actually, I get most of my theology from the Middle Ages -- Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, St Anselm and the like. To be honest I don't think that "modern" theology is any more worthwhile than any of the older stuff. It's not like they're actually finding out anything new, is it? It's all just retroactive plot-justification, IMO.

If people want to see Christianity as their preferred road to personal meditation, and don't even care if it's fact or fantasy, I'm fine with that. Whatever floats their boat. But as soon as anyone starts jabbering on about how Jesus did this or that, and how he wants to "save" me -- I'm sorry, that's off somewhere on the same dingbat spectrum as the flat-earthers and the flying-saucers-behind-Halle-Bopp crowd. Although I'll say this for the Heaven's Gate flying-saucer bunch -- they died for their faith. Puts the whole martyrdom thing into perspective, doesn't it?

Actually, I get most of my theology from the Middle Ages -- Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, St Anselm and the like. To be honest I don't think that "modern" theology is any more worthwhile than any of the older stuff. It's not like they're actually finding out anything new, is it? It's all just retroactive plot-justification, IMO.

Again, look into Abelard. He provides quite a counter-argument to many of Anselm's writings.

As for "finding out something new" - perhaps. They are presenting new ways to think about things, which make more sense with the increased knowledge humankind now has.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?

I think/believe you have every right to believe as you wish in whatever god you choose. But I DO have a problem with people who try to "convert" people. It's not right. The better way to go about it would be to start a thread maybe titled "If you were thinking of becoming a Christian" or some thing like that. Most Christians on this site either get flamed because they use the bible as fact or they are preaching to the already converted. You're not going to convert people. Not on this site. Haven't you figured that out yet?

i dont have a problem with christianity as much as i do with christians. let me explain.

christians say that their path is the only path. all others are false. that is kinda arrogant,especially to someone who was raised in a non-christian family. faith is belief,and thats it...personal choice on an idea. if god starts talking to me and tells me that i need to do something,i will listen and obey. so far,NO god has deemed me worthy of spending time with me. that either means he dont exist or he dont care about me. why would i worship a being that doesnt care?

if you check out other religions,they will tell you that you need to find your own truth...they dont claim to be the only path. Wiccans for example will teach you if you are willing to learn and are serious,but they dont force it down your throat. i have never had a Wiccan come knocking at my door during supper to give me a bible or try to talk to me about being saved. they respect your beliefs and space.

christians also tend to be hypocrits,and many people see this. jesus preached about love,forgiveness,and brotherhood,but most christians are angry biggots who attack anyone who doesnt follow their beliefs and harrass minority groups like gays and pagans.


"As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity."

really? hmmmm. what do you think guilt and fear is? its psychological warfare.
when everything is a mortal sin and most of us are going to hell with no chance of redemption after death you shouldnt be surprised that people reject this belief system. newer more modern churches are more lenient now in an attempt to get people back,and they allow you to do things like drink and smoke,but its too late. the damage is done. it started back with the crusades,the inquisition,and the witch trials,and now we have priests that use the church to molest kids. how can a good god keep company with people who are so obviously deviant? why doesnt god answer prayers? how can god allow thousands apon thousands of kids to die prematurely every year thanks to war and famine?

christianity has had its time in the sun. it started out as a loving,forgiving religion but got seriously derailed along the way. add to this the fact that people are less superstitious now thanks to our discoveries in science.

i choose to believe that there is a reason and a purpose for creation and the universe,but i dont think we are qualified yet to understand it,and i think that most people are way off base when they try to explain it with religion. the only purpose i can see to any religion is to make people more moral and to give empty people some meaning in their lives. this is a good thing,but it is not the answer to the deeper questions of life. only time and evolution will give us the answers we seek. in the mean time,we use religion to make us feel better about our impending mortality.

even if you happen to be a faithful(over-zealous foaming at the mouth) christian,you know that what i say has a ring of truth to it,despite me being wrong and heading for hell,as you will likely claim now. try to be honest with yourself and consider what i said instead of burying your head in your traditional illusions...

Again, look into Abelard. He provides quite a counter-argument to many of Anselm's writings.

As for "finding out something new" - perhaps. They are presenting new ways to think about things, which make more sense with the increased knowledge humankind now has.

I don't really need a counter-argument to Anselm. His Ontological Argument is fundamentally flawed from the get-go -- it can be used to "prove" the existence of roller-skating unicorns -- and it's not as if he produced much else that was any cop, either.

It's true, though, I suppose, that if some modern theologians are bending their stories ever-further to fit in with modern science (i.e. holy shit look at how BIG this place is, and how OLD, we EVOLVED FROM TUBEWORMS, etc etc), that could be entertaining. But what would be the point? If they're moving away from "it literally happened" and towards "well maybe there's something beyond, who can say?", then good for them. High bloody time. Fundamentally, though, I'm not that interested. Medieval theology I find enjoyable because it's a route into a medieval mindset. I'm a historian, that's what I like. But I don't take their delusions seriously, any more than I believe that gold is formed by the heat of the sun, or that there are dog-headed men living in India, or that barnacle geese grow from barnacles.

Jesus as literal Son of God = Thing That Doesn't Happen. Just a story.
Nebulous Something Beyond = unknowable, untestable and unprovable. A waste of time.

I don't really need a counter-argument to Anselm. His Ontological Argument is fundamentally flawed from the get-go -- it can be used to "prove" the existence of roller-skating unicorns -- and it's not as if he produced much else that was any cop, either.

I wasn't really speaking of his ontological argument so much as his idea of atonement, which seems to be the only one you have heard.

Christian evangelism almost invariably takes either one of two forms: argument by intimidation (Christians are good! Non-Christians are evil! You don't want to be considered evil, do you?) or a thinly-veiled threat (Do what we say, or burn in hellfire for eternity!)

Speaking for myself, I don't take kindly to either.



That, and it really annoys me when someone spouts a monologue largely composed of poorly-defined terms whose lack of definition allows it to be interpreted in whatever way is most useful to the evangelist in question at the time, and then acts as if that statement was hugely profound and completely validates any opinion they might hold.

And, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I study theology.

Christians waste a lot of time trying to argue there is a God and the divinity of Christ. Put in the simplest way, each person possess an autonomous guilt for wrongs against God and man. Only Christ can fix it. Beyond that you're wasting your time.

How would giving someone a lecture on how to right their evil ways, mean that the person giving the lecture is assuming that the other person is stupid? this is not always the case.
As UpwardThrust pointed out, the general scope of my point was directed at those who DO make the assumption that a person is ignorant, and then works from there.

In order to start in on one of these lectures, the person in question must be making certain assumptions... that a) the other person hasn't already heard JUST such a lecture and/or b) that the other person is less qualified, less educated, or less able in the field being lectured on.

If they are NOT making those assumptions... if they are assuming instead, that the person has HEARD the lecture and/or knows ALL ABOUT the material... then they are wasting their time with a lecture, and would be better served with some other form of testimony.

It doesn't necessarily follow that someone must suspect thei 'victim' is stupid, in order to start lambasting them with religious rhetoric... but it is certainly a contendor for justification of evangelism - the idea that the envangelism 'prey' is somehow too stupid or ignorant to have heard and/or understood the message.

Wrong with it? Nothing except it's annoying. Kind of like some redneck trying to convince me I'd really enjoy watching pro-wrestling.

Are you going to explain that or not?

Did it require explanation?

A 'rational' person should believe in 'god'... was basically the assertion made... responded to with the concept that 'god' is not a 'rational' concept...

Well, where is the evidence?

How do you make a logical bridge to 'god'?

Can't be done. The ONLY way to approach 'god' is through faith... and faith has nothing to do with either logic or rationality.

Whenever I attempt to explain Christianity to someone here, they tell me to "stop forcing it on them". Yet when Athiests do the same thing, no such reprisal is given

Perhaps it is all about technique, Neo?

I may disagree with Dempublicents about various things, in various threads... but you have probably never seen Dempublicents launching into offended rants about my Atheistic beliefs, or myself doing the same thing in reverse.

Similarly, Dempublicents and UpwardThrust, for example.

Similarly, Personal Responsibilit.... or FutureExistence or Aluminia (spelling?)... all of whom I have debated with without ever accusing any of them of 'forcing their ideas'.

Sure, any of those people may (and usually do) have different views to me, and we often beat those ideas around... but I think more RESPECT is given... and less ASSUMPTION of a FAULT in the other debator?

Like I say, maybe it is technique.

Just had a thought actually... as an Englishman... I often wondered why we Brits were so unpopular in various other countries as tourists. Then, I spent a while in Ireland. You are, of course, familiar with the stereotypical British Tourist approach to 'foreign' waiters (and that includes Irish, somehow)?

true

however one is extremely more likely than the other

sure, i dont mind saying that there is a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000 that god exists. i guess within the random size and age of the universe that makes it kind of likely even. but not enough for me to bet on it at this time.

I don't have time to read the whole thread (finals and all) but it turns out the odds are greater in the other direction. For Jesus Christ to have met 47 of the prophecies concerning his birth, life, death, and resurrection, the odds run 1 : 1x10^157. Check it out for yourself in "More than a Carpenter" (it's like 4 bucks, and I'll mail you one for free if you email me at mhvaughan@hotmail.com). These were all written down AT LEAST 200 years before Christ's birth, and they concern things he couldn't control (his place of birth, his lineage, the time of his birth, what events were going on at the same time, where he began his ministry, how he died, what other people did while he was dying, etc.) The book is a great read, and it covers prophecy I think in the chapter entitled, "Will the real Jesus please stand up". For even more in depth, read "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

God's peace,
Michael

-edit-
Figured I'd clarify a little.

I was not born a Christian (no one is...). My dad wants nothing to do with Christianity and he is hostile to it. My mom doesn't seem to have much interest. Someone had to tell me the Gospel, and I'm happy they did, because it has changed my life.
Christianity isn't about being a good person or what we do to earn Heaven. It's all about the fact that we all need Christ and that he provides the perfection, not us. We realize that we can't do it on our own and that we need him as our Lord. It's that simple. Once you ask for the forgiveness that he's earned for you, it's yours and you can't lose it (trying to is sin, sins are paid for, so you're stuck as a child of God--not that that's a bad thing...)
I tell others because I believe God has a great plan for them and I want them to be happy. God loves them, so by extension, I try to love them. I want others to have the happiness I have, so I offer them the choice and I'll keep offering it until one of us dies. It is a choice though, but I'll do everything I can to remove doubts and show people how to have an intimate relationship with the savior.
It's all about him, his glory, and his salvation. It's not about us. That's the Gospel, and you're invited.

And atheism is a religious view - it requires just as much faith as any religion.

Not true, I'm afraid.

Explicit Atheism requires faith, perhaps...

Implicit Atheism is simply the lack of faith in the given god or gods.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?


I am a practicing Wiccan...yes Pagan. Selling us on Christianity is like asking a Jew to join a hittler youth group or someone of african decent to join the Ku Klux Klan. In fact many groves and covens have laws that we abide by protecting us from it happening again.

So why dont we like christian preachings, I kinda dislike burning a fiery pit of brimstone that I dont believe in other than that I kinda dislike the masses in the faiths failure to understand the basic premises of their religion yet preach it like they wrote the bible, :headbang: :rolleyes: its kinda like watching a a one legged blind man in an ass kicking contest.

Did it require explanation?

A 'rational' person should believe in 'god'... was basically the assertion made... responded to with the concept that 'god' is not a 'rational' concept...

Well, where is the evidence?

How do you make a logical bridge to 'god'?

Can't be done. The ONLY way to approach 'god' is through faith... and faith has nothing to do with either logic or rationality.

Martin Luther argued that that was exactly why we -should- believe in God...

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why would anybody care?
The real problem with angels dancing on a pinhead is the gaps between molecules...

You're thinking of antitheists. Atheists neither acknowledge nor disbelieve in the existence of God. Antitheists have faith in the idea that there is no God. No, agnostics neither acknowlege nor dis...

No, agnostics neither acknowlege nor dis...
Correct antitheists believe there is no god (active belief) atheists have no belief in god (there is a difference)

You still haven't really given a reason why you choose not to believe in the God of the Bible. Most Christians, including myself, are simply baffled by the fact that people like you, being (self-proclaimed) intelligent, rational beings, would choose not to believe.

The initial question didn't ask why I don't believe in the God of the Bible; it asked what I found wrong with Christian evangelism.

However, if you want an answer to that, it's simple. I have no reason to make that leap of faith. There's nothing in the Bible that gives me any reason to believe in the Christian version of God than there is in the Torah to convince me that their version of God exists, or that following Mohammed's beliefs in God (Allah) are correct, or that I should be following Hinduism, Baha'i, or any religious teachings for that matter.

I discern what is right and wrong through ethics. I come to decisions through reason, not because some widely accepted writings say something is good or bad.

That's not to say there aren't teachings in the Bible that I can ethically agree with. I think that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a valid teaching. It makes sense. But it's right not because God/Jesus says it is, but rather because it is a rational course of action.

I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, I don't believe he walked on water or healed the sick. I'm not willing to make the leap of faith necessary to fly in the face of logic and common sense. Why is that so hard to understand?

because it's annoying as crap! I live in Mississippi, the middle of the Baptist belt, and If I have to tell one more person that as a CATHOLIC I am actually....really...seriously ....an authentic christan, I am going to snap.


(Catholic means I have horns and am going to hell, I am not kidding, as for those of you who have the audacity to be pagan or atheist I suggest you don't tell anyone that, the will hound you for the rest of your life. )

I am pagan, but as far as I'm concerned, all religons are OK as long as they are accepting, and not fanatics.

because it's annoying as crap! I live in Mississippi, the middle of the Baptist belt, and If I have to tell one more person that as a CATHOLIC I am actually....really...seriously ....an authentic christan, I am going to snap.


(Catholic means I have horns and am going to hell, I am not kidding, as for those of you who have the audacity to be pagan or atheist I suggest you don't tell anyone that, the will hound you for the rest of your life. )



hey, what part of MS are you in? If you think its bad for Catholics, try being a gay secular humanist. . . it ain't pretty!

As far as the catholic thing goes, I do understand. One of my best friends is Catholic and she is constantly having to tell people that she is not a cult that worships the Virigin Mary. She actually started using the best come back when people asked if she believed in Jesus--maybe she came up with it, maybe she heard it, I dunno but it had me rolling in the floor. Anyways, whenever someone asks her taht she just smiles and says "Of course! Honey, don't you know we Catholics INVENTED Jesus!"

I, personally being an atheist, have a strong bias, but one thing that bothers me about Christianity is the lack of acceptance of other religons and cultures.

Although, now that I think about it my post doesn't have much to do with the topic.