NationStates Jolt Archive

In starting the "What is wrong with Christian prolythising/evangalism" thread I seem to have a great deal of people telling me how it makes them angry because they get annoyed by people comming up to them and talking with them about something they are not interested in. That wasnt rearly the point I was trying to get at, and in retrospect its proberbly my own fault as I should have made it clearer. What I was trying to clarify is there seems to be several people on the forum who have implyed in what they say that somehow anyone attempting to explain a religon to someone else with the aim of converting them is wrong. Now I can understand it if they are already of one faith, but people seem to have a problem with things like the Alpha course which they claim "target" the vunrable and weak. Well I ask this. Target to what end? Its not like spreading the word of God to people and encouraging them to become Christians brings them any gain. It might bring the church a small ammount from collection money but thats not rearly the point of the Alpha course. Is there anything that people consider morrally wrong with evanglism, something that morrality does not allow for it?

(SIDENOTE: In the orignal thread, a great deal of people have complained about fire and brimestone evangalism so WTS, as I intend to make a thread discussing that later, but for the moment can we not get too bogged down in it here)

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with evangelism, in the same way there's nothing morally wrong with shouting 'Go fuck yourself, dickhead' at random passers-by.

It depends on whose morality you're basing it on.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with evangelism, in the same way there's nothing morally wrong with shouting 'Go fuck yourself, dickhead' at random passers-by.
I agree completely. Though, I'd liken it more to lying, myself.

is there anything immoral about selling vacuum cleaners door to door?

as long as you are respectful and honest how can it be morally wrong?

you say "to what end?"

would you feel the same way about someone evangelizing an obvious cult, targeting the vulnerable and weak? something like that cult that ended up with the kool-aid suicides in guyana? or the scientologists bent on draining the converts bank accounts?

and what is the alpha course?

IWhat I was trying to clarify is there seems to be several people on the forum who have implyed in what they say that somehow anyone attempting to explain a religon to someone else with the aim of converting them is wrong. Now I can understand it if they are already of one faith, but people seem to have a problem with things like the Alpha course which they claim "target" the vunrable and weak.

Are you implying that us atheists and agnostics are fair game for evangelism, but those which do have a theistic religious conviction are somehow different and off limits?

Are you implying that us atheists and agnostics are fair game for evangelism, but those which do have a theistic religious conviction are somehow different and off limits?

Well I would consider it rather an affront if a Muslim were to evangilise to me (a Christian) in the same way as someone with no faith. Can you see what I'm getting at. You have to treet those with a diffrent faith to you diffrently than those with no paritcular faith.

you say "to what end?"

would you feel the same way about someone evangelizing an obvious cult, targeting the vulnerable and weak? something like that cult that ended up with the kool-aid suicides in guyana? or the scientologists bent on draining the converts bank accounts?


Had you actually read my post, I was refering to specificly Christian cases with the "to what end" quote. While there are some cults which encourage over generous donation and self harm, I see little evidence for either of these in the case of Christianity.

We have faith in something. It just doesn't happen to be God. We are not "fair game." We take just as much affront from you preaching to us as you would from a Muslim preaching to you.

Well I would consider it rather an affront if a Muslim were to evangilise to me (a Christian) in the same way as someone with no faith. Can you see what I'm getting at. You have to treet those with a diffrent faith to you diffrently than those with no paritcular faith.

I don't see how just because someone is of 'no particular faith', it means that they're just waiting for someone to bring them the good news about christianity.

In the western world at least, EVERYONE has heard of christianity, everyone knows Jesus died on the cross for blah blah blah. If somebody is of no particular faith, it isn't because they haven't considered christianity, and someone trying to sell christianity to them is no less an affront than it would be a muslim trying to sell islam to a christian.

Well I would consider it rather an affront if a Muslim were to evangilise to me (a Christian) in the same way as someone with no faith. Can you see what I'm getting at. You have to treet those with a diffrent faith to you diffrently than those with no paritcular faith.

I resent the implication that the atheists have no faith: they have faith in the non-sxistence of gods.

EDIT: side note - yourself and the Muslim have much more in common than the atheists and you.

it wouldn't matter to me. People can witness to me as long as I witness back. My athest friends don't mind as long as I respect their decision and don't force them into making a choice. (Which i don't)

here on a forum, tho. I find it interesting that alot of people post saying they don't wanna hear the Word of God, yet they post in "preachy" threads... is there anyone forcing these people to read those threads? they take offense at being Preached or witnessed to, but willingly open themselves to those who want to preach...

Had you actually read my post, I was refering to specificly Christian cases with the "to what end" quote. While there are some cults which encourage over generous donation and self harm, I see little evidence for either of these in the case of Christianity.

i did read your quote.

my question was in order to give you a thought of other not so nice evangelists and to ask you if its ok if "bad people" evangelize.

i was hoping you would explain this alpha course.

you feel that only those without belief should be evangelized?

and yes there are (or at least used to be) quite a few nominally christian cults. even the unification church can in a way be considered christian since the rev moon is the little brother of jesus.

Well, I would say that I see nothing morally wrong with it, but there are (as in everything) caveats.

If a person's views tell them that any other religion is heresy/blasphemy/heathenism/etc. they might consider it wrong.

However, barring that and other increasingly rare circumstances, I don't see a problem. I myself have been approached by evangelists of various faiths, and I do my best to give them all an attentive ear and an open mind.

Which reminds me of another factor. If the belief system being proposed is innately unhealthy or improper (like a cult), then that would also be wrong.

Well I would consider it rather an affront if a Muslim were to evangilise to me (a Christian) in the same way as someone with no faith. Can you see what I'm getting at. You have to treet those with a diffrent faith to you diffrently than those with no paritcular faith.

No, you don't have to treat those of a different faith differently than those with a lack of faith. I know atheists and agnostics who know more about Christianity than a good portion of Christians. Perhaps they already know what you have to say, so less of the good news should be preached to them because they know a decent amount. I'd say atheists and agnostics would probably be less "fair game" than others.

If a person's views tell them that any other religion is heresy/blasphemy/heathenism/etc. they might consider it wrong.

Isn't this statement implicit in any form of evangelism - an evangelist is saying that their faith isthe one true faith and so all others are wrong, no?

I'd say atheists and agnostics would probably be less "fair game" than others.

I think a distinction should be made here between most atheists and most agnostics: most atheists will have faith in the non-existence of a deity, whereas an agnostic by definition has faith neither way.

I think a distinction should be made here between most atheists and most agnostics: most atheists will have faith in the non-existence of a deity, whereas an agnostic by definition has faith neither way.

Why does a distinction need to be made? If it's by definition, then the usage of the word itself is all that is needed. Yes there is a difference, but that doesn't change the fact that these two groups are both being used as "fair game" nor that both (through my experience) tend to have a good knowledge about Christianity and other religions.

what's this talk about Fair Game... when it comes to religion... eveyone who is not of the same faith as you is 'Fair Game' Not just Athiests or Agnostics... but Islam, Buddists, Baptists, Catholic and every other faith is open to conversion. Athiests, in my opinon, are harder to convert. but if/when they do, they are strong in their beliefs.

I have a question. If evangelism causes a person to abandon their beliefs, would this not mean that the evangelical is guilty of aiding a person in commiting apostasy?

what's this talk about Fair Game... when it comes to religion... eveyone who is not of the same faith as you is 'Fair Game' Not just Athiests or Agnostics... but Islam, Buddists, Baptists, Catholic and every other faith is open to conversion. Athiests, in my opinon, are harder to convert. but if/when they do, they are strong in their beliefs.

Neo Cannen is the one talking about treating those with no faith (agnostics and athiests (regardless of the argument they have faith in no god, they lack a religion)) different from those of a different religion when it comes to evangalising. Personally, I find evangalism to be annoying and think no one is fair game and that they should mind their own business, but that's not the way the game works.

Whether something like evangelicanism is "morally wrong" is a moot question.
Sure, it might be wrong or offensive to you, but aren't you simply telling them that their faith is morally wrong by your own standards?

Morality itself has to be based on some form of standard or comparison. Therefore, in essence, by deposing evengelicanism as "immoral," you are in a sense imposing your own standard of morality on them. Now who's being evangelical?

When people have a right to talk, people also have a right not to listen.

"Is there anything morraly wrong with evangalism?"

According to my moral code, that which is lame in the sight of the Most Holy Fluorescent Orange Ten-ton Centaur is morally reprehensible. The Supremely Glorious MoHoFlOrToCent finds evangelism is extremely lame. Do the math.

in testifying you are trying to save people. that infers that people need to be saved which is an insult to people that dont feel they need to be judged by a christian. the evangelical approach is spam. do you like spam?

Originally Posted by Bodies Without Organs
Isn't this statement implicit in any form of evangelism - an evangelist is saying that their faith isthe one true faith and so all others are wrong, no?
Not necessarily. I've seen some that do not have that sense of absolute superiority.

In starting the "What is wrong with Christian prolythising/evangalism" thread I seem to have a great deal of people telling me how it makes them angry because they get annoyed by people comming up to them and talking with them about something they are not interested in. That wasnt rearly the point I was trying to get at, and in retrospect its proberbly my own fault as I should have made it clearer. What I was trying to clarify is there seems to be several people on the forum who have implyed in what they say that somehow anyone attempting to explain a religon to someone else with the aim of converting them is wrong. Now I can understand it if they are already of one faith, but people seem to have a problem with things like the Alpha course which they claim "target" the vunrable and weak. Well I ask this. Target to what end? Its not like spreading the word of God to people and encouraging them to become Christians brings them any gain. It might bring the church a small ammount from collection money but thats not rearly the point of the Alpha course. Is there anything that people consider morrally wrong with evanglism, something that morrality does not allow for it?

(SIDENOTE: In the orignal thread, a great deal of people have complained about fire and brimestone evangalism so WTS, as I intend to make a thread discussing that later, but for the moment can we not get too bogged down in it here)

Please correct your spelling, and I would be glad to discuss your topic.

Why does a distinction need to be made? If it's by definition, then the usage of the word itself is all that is needed. Yes there is a difference, but that doesn't change the fact that these two groups are both being used as "fair game" nor that both (through my experience) tend to have a good knowledge about Christianity and other religions.

I was making a distinction here, as Neo-Cannen seems to be suggesting that atheists and agnostics are fair game as they are without faith, but I was pointing out that atheists do have faith (atheistic one), and so should be treated as he would treat, for example, a Muslim.

I also wanted to go back and add a caveat to my comment with regard to atheists, in that there is the possibility also that instead of having faith in neither the existence nor the non-existence of a deity, they could have faith in the impossibility of knowing whether there is a deity or not. Those who have faith in the impossibility of knowing should also therwefore be excluded from Neo-Cannens evangelism.

Not necessarily. I've seen some that do not have that sense of absolute superiority.

Agreed, but I wouldn't really term such people as evangelists - 'religious debators'?