A liberal Christian and the Great Commission.

[More Than A Feeling]

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't been doing any evangelizing for Jesus lately. In fact, I think I have tried once in my entire life as a Christian. The call to make disciples is NOT my favorite part of Christianity. This raises a problem, though. These are reported to be the very words of Jesus, so I can't negate that part of the Bible by saying that it belongs to the Old Testament and isn't applicable any more.

What's worse is that I am perfectly willing to do the same things that evangelism would require in a different context. I have no problem going door to door on behalf of the Democratic Party, or calling voters on behalf of candidates. My friends and family know that when election time nears, they are going to hear from me on the virtues of voting, and of voting for Democrats. I imagine you all do the same thing.

So why am I (and anyone else in my situation) willing to perform for our political party, but not for God and Jesus?

[charles22]

1. Where did Jesus say, Force your views on the unwilling?

[More Than A Feeling]

2. You can evangelize without "forcing your views on the unwilling"

The Bible says that Jesus said that if someone wouldn't listen, to shake the dust off our shoes as a testimony against them and move on.

[charles22]

3. So what's the problem?

[More Than A Feeling]

4. The problem is as I have stated.

I'm more reluctant to follow the Great Commission than I am to Get Out the Vote.

[charles22]

5. Well, as someone who has had

too many evangelicals in my face, I say, Good.

[bryant69]

6. Hospitality

I like Slactivists take on this issue - he's an evangelical writing about the Left Behind books (which he calls the worst books of all time) and the reveiw is well worth checking out --> http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/left_behind/index.html

'How did this become the case? How did something that was supposed to be about "good news" become, instead, an awkward, embarrassing and odious duty?

This happened, I think, when what ought to be an act of hospitality was transformed into an act of salesmanship. Salesmanship, whatever else it may be, is ultimately inhospitable.

. . . "Evangelism" today is not seen as the practice of hospitality, but as a kind of marketing scheme. It is not an invitation, but a sales pitch. Not a matter of "taste and see," but of "buy now." Or, to use one of my favorite descriptions of the work of evangelism, it is not "one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread," but rather one fat man trying to convince another fat man that he's a beggar in order to close the sale on another loaf." --> http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html

You have a duty to share, but not to force. Or that's my take.

Bryant

[More Than A Feeling]

9. I like that. n/t

[trotsky]

10. "How did something...become, instead, an awkward, embarrassing and odious duty?"

Democracy. Secularism. Freedom of religion. Enlightenment.

Prior to these, nothing held back the church. Spreading the word, converting what you can and killing what you couldn't. Liberal Christians today realize that one's freedom to believe and worship as one chooses outweighs the commandment to proselytize.

Thank GOD. :evilgrin:

[bryant69]

13. You just start from a place of assuming a theist is a bastard don't you?

I guess I'll copy in the paragraph I passed over, since his answer to the qusetion isn't the same as yours.

"We could go back and look at the causes of this perverse commodification of the gospel -- tracing the way that 19th-century evangelists like Charles Finney began adopting the techniques of salesmen, and how these techniques were further refined over the years by students of marketing like Bill Bright. But we needn't go into great detail here about how this happened to acknowledge that it has happened."

Bryant

[trotsky]

17. Theists, no. Most Christians in power up until the enlightenment, yes.

Needless to say, what I said stands: liberal believers now acknowledge that their neighbors' right to believe what they want trumps the commandment to endlessly proselytize to them.

[bryant69]

20. So we are hypocrites now, you are saying?

Letting our convienence trump the holy word of God? We should all be out pounding the streets and pestering you because that's what the Bible says? The fact that we aren't shows we don't really believe in the Bible? Are we back here again?

Bryant

[trotsky]

23. No, you're enlightened.

I had assumed you'd take it as a compliment. My bad.

[bryant69]

26. No you've made me rethink it

I'm a sinner. God requires me to go out and teach the gospel whether people like it or not - i mean that's what the Bible says doesn't it? And here I am respecting others beliefs? Truely God must hate me for my failure to spread his holy word whether my neighbors like it or not.

God bless you Trotsky for teaching me the truth. Without your keen insight into what the Bible really means I would have continued on in my sinful ways of respecting others beliefs and not forcing my beliefs on them (while being willing to share my beliefs as the situation arise). You've opened my eyes.

Bryant

[Danger Mouse]

102. No...

His statement isn't at all rude to liberal christians.
Read more closely.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. There is no denying that moden mainline Christianity

is substantially different, due to the loss of official power. It's probable, given the timeline noted in Bryant69's quote, that rise of the need for average Christian evangelism only happened once Christians couldn't rely on the government to do it for them anymore.

[Lerkfish]

14. brilliant post! thanks.

[jgraz]

22. If there were any truth to it, theism would not have to be "sold"

Did Einstein have to "sell" his theory of relativity? How about Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism?

Time and again, any "selling" that science has had to do is almost always due to an anti-rationalist attack from the religious establishment. But, of course, the scientists always prevail. Always. No religion has ever succeeded in stopping the acceptance of a scientific discovery, or of replacing a scientific theory with one based on their doctrine.

Truth requires no evangelism.

[bryant69]

24. Thank you for that knock

You know I think that the OP made it clear he or she was asking his fellow religionists - obviously the answer to any religious question from an Atheist point of view is "Just stop being a Theist."

Bryant

[jgraz]

25. There is a Christian Liberals forum

If the OP didn't want debate, she would have posted there. This is a discussion for all theological viewpoints, even the rational ones.

[bryant69]

27. OK - how many times do you think you need to repeat the argument

"Just stop being a theist" before your duty is done? Talk about the missionary spirit.

Bryant

[jgraz]

29. Hey, I've never argued against the missionary spirit

I just think you should make a small effort to find out if you're actually right before embarking on your mission.

[bryant69]

32. A small effort?

Hmmmmmmm. Nice.

I guess the lesson here is that if you are a Christian/Theist it's important to show respect for those not of your faith. But if you are an Atheist there's really no need.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

41. In defense of atheists, they don't agree with theism

therefore they don't think respect for theists is required.
Its an absolute in their minds, that there is no god, so therefore anyone who believes there is must be delusional, evil or insane.
So why treat a delusional evil or insane person with tolerance, because they simply don't deserve it.
There are two groups of people in the world, atheists, and unenlightened savages, hell bent on destroying the world.


its the height of irony that they demand absolute tolerance of their own views.

for clarity: let me repunctuate:

There are two groups of people in the world: atheists; and unenlightened savages hell bent on destroying the world.

and that was meant to be displaying what atheists have stated here.

[More Than A Feeling]

43. Your post is probably going to be deleted, and good riddance.

I condemn in the strongest possible terms, your claim that atheists are hell bent on destroying the world. That's vile, pure and simple. (I don't know you are referring to with the whole savages thing, or I'd know whether to condemn that too, or not.)

[Lerkfish]

44. reading comprehension much? try rereading it again.

I'm saying that's how atheists refer to christians here.

I did repunctuate it for clarity.


for the record, atheists have continually claimed here that if it were not for religion, there'd be no wars.

[More Than A Feeling]

45. The new punctuation changes the meaning considerably.

[Lerkfish]

46. but you're not equally bothered that I'm reporting what atheists have said?

you're only bothered when you misunderstood it as me saying it about atheists?

interesting.

further, I don't agree the punctuation muddled the meaning so much as to imply its exact opposite.

[More Than A Feeling]

48. I've seen with my own eyes, an atheist condemning her fellows

for going too far, and insulting Christians. It would be wrong of me not to do the same as far as my fellow Christians going too far and insulting atheists.

No, I am not equally bothered. People say other people said a lot of things, and that doesn't have the same emotional impact, as when a person is saying something themself.

[jgraz]

50. Wait -- I AM actually hell-bent on destroying the world!

How'm I doing so far?

:evilgrin:

[Az]

51. Heckuva Job Jgraz!

Heckuva Job!

[Zhade]

66. Please don't speak for THIS atheist. I don't feel that way AT ALL.

I respect lots of theists - like yourself. Or I do, when you don't post garbage like this.

I don't respect the belief in things for which there is no corroborating evidence, but that does NOT mean I automatically disrespect theists. It's wrong for you to infer that of all atheists, just as wrong as if I were to say all Christians condemn atheists to hell for not believing.

"Its an absolute in their minds, that there is no god, so therefore anyone who believes there is must be delusional, evil or insane."

This is absolutely false - as you've already acknowledged in the past. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS. I lack belief in them. Why are you reverting to this lie when you KNOW that WE know that you know better?

Likewise, I don't think theists are delusional, evil, or insane.

I think they are wrong in interpreting alleged personal emotions and experiences as gods-related. That does not mean I see them as any of the things you wrongly claim atheists such as I do.

You know better than this, and I'm very disappointed to see you say things we both know aren't true. You're bordering on bigotry here, and that's beneath you.

[Lerkfish]

80. mea culpa

I should have said "some atheists".

[Zhade]

100. Apology accepted.

NT!

[jgraz]

70. once again, you confuse theists with theism

Attacking the belief is a perfectly valid point of discussion. Attacking the person is just being an asshole.

What I've found, though, is that many theists are so personally wrapped up in their beliefs that they take any attack on their doctrine to be a personal insult. I reject the notion that theism has some special status that places it outside the bounds of rational debate. It's an epistimological system, just like western medicine or progressive populism, and as such, is fully subject to critical examination.

[Danger Mouse]

103. Most of the atheists I've found on DU...

Don't feel that way at all.
They don't necessarily 'respect' religious views, but I don't think that they imagine all religious people to be evil, delusional, or insane, either.
I've had very nice conversations with most of them...but there are a couple who aren't worth talking to.
Same goes for some of the religious folk on here, too.

[immoderate]

140. There's a good point.

How can you respect someone's beliefs, without believing them? Answer: You can't. You can respect a person's right to hold those beliefs, even in the face of rational argument. It's a case of "love the theist, hate the theology."

There is no problem here, unless you take the bible to be the literal word of god. This requires an acceptance of circularity and ignoring those things which have already been shown to be invalid.

While atheists understand that anybody can be wrong about some things, (indeed, logic dictates that they must be,) what is the value of reason, when there are those who willfully eschew it?

--IMM

[jgraz]

49. Why does your belief system have a special status that requires my respect?

Atheists don't have a faith, and we don't demand respect. Feel free to destroy my world view at any point by providing evidence of your god.

If I believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, that we should burn witches or that it was right to keep black people in slavery, you would feel under no obligation to "respect" those beliefs. The fact that I could point directly to parts of my preeminent religious text that supported my view would likely carry zero weight with you.

No belief is deserving of respect. Beliefs backed up by evidence are simply accepted, beliefs with no evidence are eventually discarded. If any accepted belief is then refuted by new discoveries, it is abandoned immediately. This is how we deal with every idea, except for religion. Why do you feel that your beliefs should not be subject to these criteria?

The real reason, I suspect is that you're using the word "respect" as a synonym for "adopt". The fact that I disagree with you and say so is the real problem.

[bryant69]

53. As is the fact that I disagree with you

Instead of being a "Tame" Christian. If only one of us would abandon his views we'd be fine.

But since neither of us is likely to do that than we can either treat each other with respect or we can choose not to. You've made your choice apparently.

I am not using respect as a synonym for Adopt and I don't know where you get that. Saying that I haven't even made "a little effort" to find out if my beliefs are true is an insult, pure and simple. I might disagree with your views, but I haven't questioned your integrity in having them.

Bryant

[jgraz]

55. You are inferring something that doesn't exist

Do I need to point out the irony of you applying an extreme and unfounded interpretation to something you read?

In any case, I'm fine with re-wording it to show exactly what I mean: I feel that one should make a concerted effort to prove oneself wrong before embarking on any mission of evangelism. You should subject your hypotheses to the harshest possible opposing evidence. That's the only way to truly learn if they are valid.

If your beliefs cannot stand up to such scrutiny, or if they are structured in such a way as to be impossible to disprove, then you have a real epistemological problem, IMHO.

[bryant69]

57. Boy is that not what you said initially

But if you want us to pretend that's what you said, I guess I'll take you at your word.

I guess I will leave it to you to consider whether I have tested my beliefs or not, but my guess is, since I haven't come to the same conclusion you have, I must have done a pretty poor job of it.

Bryant

[jgraz]

58. Hence the rewording

I chose to go with the falsifiable tack since I really do see you making a huge effort to convince yourself and us that your beliefs are true. My real problem is that you seem almost compelled to ignore the mountains of evidence that conflict with that view. I thought the second wording was a better way to get my point across.

One problem is that when you get backed into a corner, you always pull out the "I'm insulted" card. I've seen you do it many times. You seem to not be able to see the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach when directed at you from the other side. My impression is that all of the people who I've seen disagree with you respect you quite a bit. Otherwise, we'd just ignore you or tell you you're retarded and get our posts deleted.

The fact that we refer to your beliefs as irrational, deluded or crazy may sound like a personal insult, but anyone who makes those charges is usually able to show exactly where your belief system falls under the precise definitions of those conditions. If they aren't able to do so (or at least refuse to make the effort), then they're just being a dick and you should call them on it.

[bryant69]

59. Hmmmmm.

One problem is that when you get backed into a corner, you always pull out the "I'm insulted" card. I've seen you do it many times.

I guess it would look that way from your point of view - from mine it's very hard for some atheists to discus civally for to long with a theist, unless that theist is willing to abandon his or beliefs right off. If someone maintains their belief in God or religion, you get upset and start insulting.

But I suppose to each their own.

Bryant

[jgraz]

62. I guess it's just easier to debate whether or not you got insulted

than to discuss the actual merits of your original argument. For me, it's kind of boring.

If you want to prove anything I've said is wrong, stupid or just batshit crazy, go right ahead. When you do, I will sincerely thank for for disillusioning me and adjust my views to incorporate the new information.

[bryant69]

65. My original argument was that people should share the gospel

in a hospitable spirit rather than force it down peoples throats. This is premised on the idea that Christianity is true, and that Christians are required to share the Good News.

You attacked that base. Fair enough from your point of view - any discussion of behaving as a Christian or trying to live up to Christianity hinges on whether or not you believe Christianity to be true - you don't so naturally your response is "it doesn't matter - since Christianity isn't true."

Fair enough, from your point of view, but does that mean that each time I talk about my Christian faith how it impacts me or how I might try to live according to it I need to first prove that theres a God and prove that my God is the right one?

Doesn't that basically commit this board to talking about nothing but proofs of God's existence or the lack thereof?

Bryant

[kiahzero]

68. That seems to be what every conversation inevitably devolves into

So... yeah.

[jgraz]

69. Now THIS is an interesting point

Once you begin discussing religion on a forum which includes atheists (or, like me, antitheists), you have to be prepared to defend the basic premises of your statements. It's very difficult to see how you would get through an entire discussion of the best way to share the gospel without someone jumping in to ask you why sharing the gospel is morally or intellectually supportable.

Now, I do believe that sharing the "good news" of the christian gospel is something that merits opposition. I've presented some of my reasons in other posts, and I'll have more to say on it in the coming days (maybe for my 1000th post). You should expect that when someone starts a discussion on this forum that is based on the assumption that christianity is inherently a good thing and should be shared, you're going to get a few people who show up to say "not so fast."

On the other hand, anyone who just jumps on the thread and yells "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" is being an asswipe. I don't see a lot of people doing that.

Of course, you're free to discuss the subject of your faith with absolutely no input from the atheist wing of DU. You just have to use the forum that's set up for that purpose.

[More Than A Feeling]

71. Wait, you're an ANTI-theist?

Will you please explain what that means to you? I've never encountered that term before. Of course, i know what it sounds like, but terms like this are such tricky things in this forum.

[jgraz]

74. antitheist: One opposed to belief in the existence of a God.

Here's a good explanation of the term:

http://www.answers.com/topic/antitheism

I'm not quite a militant as Christopher Hitchens, but I agree with his statement quoted on that page:

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

Even though the term makes it sound like I oppose theists themselves, that's not the case. It's just that calling myself an antitheism-ist is kind of a mouthful.

[More Than A Feeling]

77. Thanks! n/t

[kiahzero]

78. Do you have any actual evidence to back up that claim?

That, for instance, Unitarian Universalism is a version of the same "untruth" as the most rabidly right-wing fundamentalist group you can think of?

[jgraz]

79. You consider Unitarian Universalism to be theist?

If so, you have a very different definition of that than I do.

[kiahzero]

82. I certainly consider it to be religious.

And the theological underpinnings would lead me to label it as "theist," yes.

[jgraz]

85. Wow, is there another Unitarian Universalist than the one I know about?

One where they actually endorse or require a theist world view?

[kiahzero]

90. Like I said, it's the theological underpinnings that lead me in that direction

http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html

[jgraz]

93. Yep, that is pretty God-y

I was part of a UU church for a while, and I was a stone-cold atheist the whole time. People talked about god, others practiced paganism and none had a problem with my atheism. We had some great discussions on the subject.

[kiahzero]

94. I've never been, but I've heard they're pretty good

That's exactly my point, though.

[Finder]

105. I do not consider it theist...

and have only met atheists and deists when attending. Then again I never polled either.lol

[jgraz]

81. Though to answer your actual question -- yes, I do

I'm working on a post right now, to be published hopefully in the next couple of days. The details of the arguments are somewhat subtle, so I don't want to jump into that entire debate right now.

[kiahzero]

84. Fine

In the mean time, forgive me if I regard your views as contradicted by the facts.

[jgraz]

86. Yes, I forgive you

Go in peace and sin no more, my son.
O8)

[kiahzero]

87. That'll be pretty easy.

I don't really believe in sin, so it's something that's pretty easy to avoid.

:D

[bryant69]

72. Maybe Skinner should consider elimianting this forum, and

relegating us to our corners so we no longer interact.

We can stay in the religion forum and you can stay in the atheist forum.

[jgraz]

75. that would be boring

I don't need people to reinforce my view. It's much more interesting to challenge and be challenged by intelligent people who think I'm totally wrong.

[bryant69]

83. I may think you are totally wrong

But since my belief is also that there is no way to prove the existence of God, i.e. to force belief on someone, than I don't think there's any hope of us ever doing anything except pissing each other off.

[jgraz]

88. Except that you have never, ever pissed me off

You and kiahzero are some of the best posters on here -- you don't let anything go by unchallenged.

[kiahzero]

92. Thank you for the kind words. (n/t)

[Zhade]

107. He's already said "no" to that, which I agree with.

He's right not to do so just because some believers don't like their beliefs questioned.

[kiahzero]

60. When has Bryant proselytized here?

I've only been here for about 3 months, but I can't recall anything that could be qualified as "making a huge effort to convince ... us that (his) beliefs are true."

[jgraz]

64. This meta-argument is really tiresome

Are you really trying to tell me that bryant has not objected to or opposed atheist or antitheist views on this forum? Fine, if that will bring us back to an actual interesting discussion, I will state categorically that I have never seen bryant initiate any proselytizing on this forum.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Here are two truths:

The Bible I have on the desk next to me contains the verse I quoted in the OP.

Christians will naturally have to interact with the Bible, in particular the portrayal of Jesus, and the commands he is said to have given, and our response to them.

[trotsky]

37. Just because it's in the bible, you have to do it?

Naw, there are plenty of rationalizations for why you don't have to avoid your wife during her period, or keep women quiet in church, or any number of the other questionable dicta found within. Surely someone has found an "out" for this one as well. Uhh... I mean, surely someone has CORRECTLY interpreted it so that you aren't required to follow the verse as it is written.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Not what I said, not what I meant.

My point was that Christians may not do everything in the Bible, or believe in everything in the Bible, but they must at least address the book and give it consideration. Whether the Bible contains truth or not, its historically true that the Bible has been a source of ideas for Christianity. The result may be the apologetics you noted, but someone had to think about the Bible in order to come up with them.

[jgraz]

52. So I addressed the book, considered it and decided that it was hooey

Am I a Christian now?

[kiahzero]

39. Yes.

Any sort of new scientific insight generally gets fought about in the scientific community, as a new understanding replaces the old.

[jgraz]

54. Only slightly true

The "fighting" usually applies only to major paradigm shifts. There are thousands upon thousands of discoveries made every year that are simply accepted as having been proved based on evidence.

Even in the paradigm shifts, the arguments are based on evidence -- not supposition, feelings or wishful thinking. Since scientists are human, I'm guessing all that enters into the fray at some point, but the evidence is always paramount.

[hunter]

67. Actually, you do have to sell science.

It's very competitive.

There are so many ideas out there, if you just toss them out into the wilderness instead of selling them they simply die.

You also have to sell yourself as a scientist.

Of all the pseudo-scientific crap on the internet that purports to be science, amidst that giant stinking haystack, there may be a golden needle or two... but who would know?

For example, nobody understood the significance of what Gregor Johann Mendel had discovered until after he was dead.

[jgraz]

73. See post #54

Science that requires evangelism is the exception, not the rule. We just tend to hear about the big paradigm shifts, rather that the newest refinement on the projected mass of the Higgs boson.

Furthermore, scientific "evangelism" takes a much different form from the religious version. Scientific debates are about evidence, not feelings or supposition. No matter how convinced a scientist is of her beliefs, she will abandon them once faced with convincing contradictory evidence.

This is much different from the religious debate, which often starts with a set of unsupported assumptions that are then tied together by circular logic. The true genius of religion is that the circle is often so large that it's impossible to see the entire thing at once.

[hunter]

91. You really have to sell yourself as a scientist to do high energy physics.

Those machines are expensive!

Science is also "tied together by circular logic."

What goes on inside the minds of humans is really of no consequence to the nature of the universe. If a giant rock strikes the earth tommorrow, humans become about as relevant as dinosaurs, and even if a giant rock doesn't strike the earth tommorrow we are probably still just as relevant as dinosaurs.

Human beings care about things... well... because human beings care about things. Everything rests on unsupported assumptions. Granted the methods of science are somewhat different than the methods of religion, but if you argue the two you are ultimately arguing about which zero is prettier.

So you build your ethical system and legal system on something else...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

You might phrase that a bit differently if you happen to be an atheist, but those "certain unalienable Rights" are just as unscientific as the notion of a Creator. Unlike physical laws, unalienable human rights can be violated, and they often are.

Science, like religion, is just one of the things that humans do.

[PVnRT]

76. Actually, he did

His theories were not universally accepted right away. No scientific theory is, or we would not have things called "peer review." Besides, if people just took scientific theory as fact, why did anyone question Newton? Or Ptolemy? Or Aristotle?

There is rigorous debate today over the nature of the universe, about the particularls of string theory, p-branes, etc. Something doesn't just get accepted because it's SCIENCE!, it gets accepted because it stands up to further scrutiny and makes good predictions and/or explains how the universe works on a fundamental level.

Interestingly, Einstein refused to accept quantum theory ("God does not play dice with the universe"). Does that make him "unenlightened" or less intelligent?

[ulysses]

89. yeah, like a theist like you knows anything about science.

:D :hi:

[PVnRT]

96. Well, I do know that the Braves suck hard

And the Sooners

:hi:

[ulysses]

99. LOL

Hey, this was a rebuilding...oh what the hell...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Actually, scientists do have to sell their theories

They have to publish them in peer-reviewed journals, and even then, there are cases in which other scientists refuse to believe them (e.g. string theory), especially when no one has come up with a way to verify them experimentally.

[classof56]

40. One of my favorite hymns is, "They will know we are Christians...

by our love." Wow...wonder if anyone sings that anymore (I no longer attend church). There was a saying back in my youth regarding evangelism, "Love them into the kingdom." And then there was that verse saying that believers would be known by their works.

The recent "shove it down everyone's throats, believe like I do or you're toast" attitude is so far over the top the "Christian Majority" is losing the long-time faithful, me for one.

Good post, Bryant. Thanks!

Tired Old Cynic

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. maybe because he was talking to the disciples that stood before

him, not to followers 40 generations removed from him. He also said that they would see the kingdom of heaven in their lifetimes. What do you make of that?

[Taverner]

8. Making disciples is not forcing doctrine on the masses

Essentially, Jesus is saying "go out and be a teacher"

My reading of Christianity is basically that a Christian should be a teacher in as much as he or she can. Like the parables of the mustard seed and the ten talents, a Christian should not horde information or knowlege but to pass it on to all who have ears.

Gnostics believed their comission was in sending out specific information to specific beleievers.

[jgraz]

11. Because Democrats can actually be shown to exist

Their policies are based on falisifiable hypotheses that produce measurable results. You can actually make arugments based on evidence, which most of us who have been raised in a modern western society are much more comfortable with.

Any reasonable person would see that supporting Democrats and advocating for them makes much more sense than any religious evangelism.

[RethugAssKicker]

12. Maybe Jesus was wrong.

[More Than A Feeling]

16. In what sense? n/t

[RethugAssKicker]

35. That all authority

in heaven and earth had been given to him... What a statement!

[More Than A Feeling]

36. Ah, indeed.

That brings up an interesting point. We Christians, in general, believe that Jesus had a more intimate connection with God than the average everyday person, but that doesn't have to be true. Jesus could have been worshipping his subjective idea of God, just as I proposed in another thread that we do today. It would make him as human as the rest of us, which falls in line with the "equally God and man" formulation. But if he had the same perception of God (subjective and unclear whether the ideas were just his or had basis in reality), that would contradict his claim to be God.

[Lerkfish]

42. But by the same token, he told the disciples they also had the same

authority.
And he told the people that they were sons of god, like himself.

but I guess its really easy to forget that.

[More Than A Feeling]

47. Easy for Christians, too.

I don't think it's anyones fault, as it really isn't emphasized that much. Comparatively there is so much emphasis on Jesus being the second person of the trinity.

[madrchsod]

15. try this site

http://faithfuldemocrats.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
Faithful Democrats - Home

i know to some it`s heresy to think religion has a place in politics but if they can`t respect my opinion there is an ignore button

[Az]

18. Because you are tolerant

Your politics is that of tolerance so you do not reject promoting it. But as peace loving and compassionate as your religious beliefs are you recognise that it is an imposition on others.

[Lerkfish]

19. two examples to help clarify...

1. two proselytzers go door to door at suppertime, telling anyone who opens the door that they're going to burn in hell unless they adopt their particular brand of religion.
2. A friend is having a rough time in their life. They ask you how you hold things together, so you tell them your point of view, and what religion means to you.

of those two examples, which do you think is more consistent with Jesus' intent?

There is a difference between leading by example and being an annoying squeaky wheel.

I've been to both types a of churches: a strongly evangelical one when I was in junior high, which REQUIRED us to go door to door (which I saw no point to)
and a progressive church.

of the two, I feel I've probably been more effective, both in quantity and quality, in my heartfelt conversations had with people who came to me or if the topic arose naturally.

My opinion of in your face evangelism is that it repels more people than it attracts, and doesn't put religion in a good light.
You only have to read this forum for a while and note there are a lot of people whose opinion of religion is negatively influenced by such intense unwanted proselytizing.

I say, be ready to discuss your religion to any who are interested. But don't attempt to create interest where it doesn't exist.

[xchrom]

21. well -- first if i get stuck on a passage

i have check with my inner self -- and what does it tell regarding a passage.

i'm a product of modernity -- and i was never taught that the bible is inerrant.

second i might actually check with sources like the jesus project to see if it's indispute regarding whether or not it's believed christ said this or that.

third -- when the early christians first started -- their ranks grew based on their communities doing such a good job of doing such a good of taking care of each other.

not at all like alcoholics annonymous -- we hopefull bring others by ''having something'' that someone else wants.

now that's tough because -- if done properly -- one is always taking inventory to check out the quality of the things they believe.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Witness by your deeds. Very rarely does anyone change his or her mind about

faith matters on verbal testimony alone, and most people are actually put off by, "Have you met the Lord Jesus yet?" I know I am.

[ulysses]

63. excellent thought.

Along the lines of the command to go into a closet when you pray, as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. If it's any consolation, some consider that section to be a later addition

See eg http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

because of the wording of baptising in the name of the Holy Spirit - a trinitarian viewpoint that doesn't match with Acts, and seems a later development in Christianity.

[shaniqua6392]

33. You don't need to go and knock on doors to evangelize.

You can do it as you come across people in your life. I don't mean by suggesting that people go to church or they will go to hell, etc. I do it with family by just telling them that I will pray for them when they come to me in times of trouble. Tell people to have a blessed day. No one can object to having a blessed day. I never push it on people. It is done by example. They can see how I live my life. I think that is all Jesus expects us to do. I leave the official evangelizing to the Pastors and church leaders.

[Evoman]

56. Sometimes being an atheist really rocks.

I don't have to give a shit what Jesus says or wants me to do. If Jesus says covert people, I say, "Fuck off Jesus, I want to play video games.".

Life is simpler if you don't have to justify what you do and bend over backwards to interpret some ignorant comment in a 2000 year old book. Just live a good life, and let the universe sort itself out.

[Zhade]

61. Here's my take - and you may not like it much.

I think you're seriously questioning your beliefs, in this and other recent threads.

And I think that's a wonderful thing to witness.

Maybe you don't want to evangelize because...you no longer believe you should, if you ever did?

Either way, I respect your recent posts a lot. Growth is an amazing process to behold. Best of luck, however it turns out!

(And take it from this atheist - no longer trying to believe doesn't hurt a bit.)

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Great question. I have the same one.

Unfortunately, what I don't really have for you are solid answers.

Part of it to me, is the way we're supposed to spread the word. I think in that respect, actions speak louder.

But the rest of it? A deep discomfort with pushing something as deeply personal as faith on someone else. A conviction that my way is *not* necessarily the only way, and that God speaks to different people in different ways. A nagging feeling that the interpretation we've always had isn't quite right... that a common creed isn't the point, but a united love for each other is.

I haven't entirely made sense of it, either. As if that helps you any!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. I don't do the "in your face" evangelism because I've been

confronted by fundamentalists who have tried to convince me that I'm "not Christian enough" because I haven't answered an altar call and been baptized as an adult. So I know how annoying it is.

My approach is that I will answer questions that people have and correct their misconceptions. Otherwise, I'll just work on my church's charitable projects, which do not proselytize but which help a lot of people.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Yup. Sounds like my way, too.

Happy to talk about it if I'm invited to do so. Otherwise, doing means more than talking, IMHO.

[Brentos]

101. I would ask you this....

How does Jesus ask Christians to do this?

It all starts with helping those less fortunate, the widow, the orphan, the lame (okay, it would probably be a little different in modern times who, but still, the less fortunate). Just help them. Don't bible thump, don't evangelize. Through your self-sacrifice, they should see that you are different then others, they may then ask why you are doing this, and then you have an opportunity to discuss your reasons. We can all do this.

Heck, those who don't believe in Jesus can do the same, and think of how wonderful a world it would be if we all did this.

[Zebedeo]

106. I do witness quite often.

Perhaps not as much as I should. I witnessed gently to a sweet family of Hindus over a period of two years. I also prayed for them many times. Eventually, they asked if they could come with me to my church. I was thrilled to have them accompany me.

The 22 year old daughter, I am pleased to report, has converted to Christianity! The 45 year old mother is on the fence. She is a very sweet lady, and I hold out great hope for her. Matter of fact, I will make a point to pray for her tonight.


"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail the incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with man to dwell;
Jesus, our Emmanuel!"

- Charles Wesley, 1739

[MikeH]

108. I hope your Hindu friends think for themselves

It sounds like you regard the Hindu daughter, and possibly the mother, as trophies being converted to your religion.

Whatever religion your Hindu friends might come to embrace -- Hinduism, Christianity, any other religion, or no religion -- I would hope that they will always think for themselves.

In particular, I would hope they are not brainwashed or bamboozled into going along with or accepting whatever the Bible (or any other book or authority) says as being absolute truth, not to be questioned.

And I would hope that they reject a God who sends people to hell for all eternity who don't come to accept the "right" religion in this lifetime.

[Meshuga]

109. I think it is a shame they didn't stay hindu

sticking to their roots and their culture instead of having some vulture around trying to convert them.

[Zebedeo]

129. Roots and culture are things of this world.

They will pass away into a distant memory. But salvation is forever. I'd give up all my roots and culture for eternal life with God in a heartbeat.

[Meshuga]

151. Too bad we can't ask the tribes

in South and Central America their opinion on the subject since their cultures and religions were wiped from history by the missions in name of this salvation.

I will take learning about these people's history, culture and religion over spending any second with this idea of God.

[beam me up scottie]

158. !

:thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

111. There's something obscene about the pleasure you get from "converting" someone.

Your post turns my stomach.

[charlie]

114. Makes me squirmy, too

Especially when I think of Evoman out loose in the world... spreading the Good Word about the Talking Ass Pimple. Jesus save me! :rofl:

[Evoman]

115. Its different...unlike Jesus and all the other false gods, the AP is the true lord.

In fact, I witnessed to a nice group of Hindu people this weekend. They thought I was mooning them. I converted their 22 year old daughter (obviously...Evoman with his pants down is hard to resist), but the Grandma was blind in one eye, and she couldn't see either the AP, nor the "Conversion Rod", if you get my drift.

The dad just chased me away with some Clearasil.

[kiahzero]

117. It gets you out of military service.

Therefore, it must be the One True God!

[Evoman]

122. No, unfortunately it doesn't.

In fact, the military, practical group that they are, have decided to use the AP. Apparently, apart from talking and throbbing, its a pretty good codebreaker, and can translate Arabic, and Urdu.

Thats why AP is such a good god, and you should all worship it. Its full of suprises...and pus...but MOSTLY suprises.

[charlie]

118. "They thought I was mooning them"

Strangled. On. My. Coffee.

Fuck me, I'm dying and crying here. Goddamn you.

[beam me up scottie]

119. ROFLMAO !!!

Or should it be ROFLMAPO !!!

That's gotta go in your journal!

[Zebedeo]

126. Which part?

of the post, I mean, not the stomach. Is it offensive for me to pray for people? To "witness gently" to them? Do you have some reason to object to the decision of the young woman who became a Christian? Is it the verse at the end? Please explain, as I value your opinion.

[kiahzero]

127. Because you're threatening people.

If I came to your house and told you to start believing in unicorns or I would kill you, you'd naturally be horrified.

What you're doing is infinitely worse.

[Zebedeo]

128. How do you know what I told them?

All I said about witnessing was that I "gently witnessed" to them. You think I went all hell-fire and brimstone on this sweet family? Wha???

[kiahzero]

130. Oh, that comes later?

Reel 'em in easy before you tell them that they're worshiping a sadist?

"Oh, by the way, if you ever decide to go back to Hinduism, you'll roast in a fiery inferno!"

:puke:

[Zebedeo]

131. You would be one awful evangelist.

Better stick to your day job. ;)

[kiahzero]

132. That's because evangelists are disgusting people.

I'm quite proud of the fact that I would do an awful job of an awful job.

You, on the other hand, seem to be somewhat effective at an awful job. I wonder how that reflects on you? :shrug:

[Zebedeo]

133. Pride

goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18 ;)

I've been guilty of pride many times. I know how you must feel.

[kiahzero]

134. Pride is a virtue, within reason.

Self-confidence is important in so many ways. For instance, I am confident enough in my beliefs not to be coerced into worshiping your sadistic excuse for a deity.

[Zebedeo]

135. I agree

about self-confidence, that is. Not the other part. As for your concern about hellfire and damnation for non-Christians, I thought this might be of interest to you:

“If you are worried about the people outside (of faith in Christ), the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself.” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[kiahzero]

136. Oh, please.

If someone put a gun to your head and told you to believe in unicorns, yes, it might be prudent to profess a belief in unicorns. That doesn't mean that the person holding a gun to your head is moral.

The problem is that you are ascribing a trait of "goodness" to your God, which is clearly inconsistent with doing something infinitely worse than the above hypothetical.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Because you're a predator.

Not a sexual predator, but a spiritual one.

You prey on naive people who believe in a different god or none at all. You manipulate them using the promise of blissful immortality and the fear of eternal damnation.

In the spiritual sense, evangelists and missionaries are little different than the man who leans out of his car window and offers a child a piece of candy.

[kiahzero]

142. Good analogy!

I'd add to it, because they have the candy in one hand and a gun in the other.

[beam me up scottie]

161. Yep, but they don't show them the gun until they're already in the car.

Wouldn't want to scare off the marks.



Well, I'm off to lose myself in a horror movie and forget about the real monsters in the world for a moment.

As much as I love H.P., when it comes to evil, Lovecraft's demons can't compete with humans.

[bryant69]

143. is any attempt to share your beliefs predation?

I mean don't you atheists think we Christians would be better of if we gave up our traditions and what not?

Bryant

[kiahzero]

144. No.

Active evangelism is predatory. Explaining your beliefs to a curious party is not.

[bryant69]

145. But many religious beliefs imply that you would be better off if

you accepted them. Certainly mine do. What's the difference between sharing your beliefs and evangelizing?

Bryant

[kiahzero]

146. Simple

The difference between explaining (sharing) your beliefs and attempting to get someone else to also believe your beliefs (evangelizing).

[bryant69]

147. it's a fine line.

I would think.

Anyway given the passions already involved and the participants involved, it doesn't seem like I should say much.

Bryant

[kiahzero]

148. It's really not.

Surely much of the determination has to do with intent, but that doesn't mean it's a fine line, any more than there's a "fine line" between premeditated murder and self-defensive homicide, which are distinguished not by the act, but by the intent.

[bryant69]

150. OK so if I hope that by sharing the gospel I can bring people

to the light of Christ, I'm going to hell?

Bryant

[kiahzero]

152. Is that your only purpose in doing so?

Are you one of those obnoxious people who confront random people on the street and try and talk them into converting?

I don't believe in Hell (in fact, I hold no great regard for those who do), so I can't answer "Yes" to that question. I do think that you're being obnoxious and predatory if you're doing that, though.

[bryant69]

153. I don't confront people - read my commentary above

My actions would probably largely similar to those of person who would just satisfy curiosity. Just that in the back of my mind would be the hope that they would feel the spirit of the message and want more.

Bryant

[kiahzero]

154. Well, that's fine then.

You're not being predatory.

[Meshuga]

155. People who believe in hell

"I hold no great regard for those who do"

I don't have any problems with them. In fact I feel sorry for them since they live in fear of dying and going to hell. They have to keep praying asking for forgiveness for sins they naturally commit and probably have feeling of guilt.

That's pretty heavy to live with.

We Jews have it easier. If we have a lot of guilt we don't look for Jesus. We call our shrink. :-)

[kiahzero]

156. It's a viral belief.

By it's very nature, a belief in Hell implies a need to spread that belief, to save others from that fate.

[Meshuga]

149. Evangelizing

"What's the difference between sharing your beliefs and evangelizing?"

When you envangelize you are trying to convert the person to your religion. When you share your beliefs you are just helping the listening party out with their curiosity.

I am a Jew and I can tell you all about my beliefs and my traditions if you ask me but I would not want to convert you since you a probably better off doing your own religion or non-religion.

See the difference? At least that's how I see it.

[beam me up scottie]

159. The difference between sharing your beliefs and evangelizing? About two years.

Two years of bullying a family into leaving their faith because of false promises, fear and no doubt exhaustion.

[charlie]

160. Well, he hasn't bagged the mom yet

But hope springs eternal, I suppose.

Here's something from the helpful link Zeb provided elsewhere.

http://www.probe.org/probe-answers-e-mail/cults-and-world-religions/my-boyfriend-is-muslim.html

Girl has a Muslim boyfriend/best friend. He's met her more than halfway, attending church and reading on Christianity. He's decided to stay Muslim. What's a girl to do? Dear Abbess sez:

DON'T MARRY HIM!!!!

And that's a quote, punctuation and all.

Maybe one day Zeb's kids will get poached by Scientologists. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he got the news.

[beam me up scottie]

162. AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Great, thanks a lot.

Now I won't be able to enjoy my horror movie because that mug scared me a thousand times worse than fictional monsters ever could.

Oh well, I'll just re-watch Chocolat, then. Johnny Depp will save me, I mean Juliette Binoche's character.

[beam me up scottie]

157. Is every attempt to share candy predation?

If you can't understand the difference in intent, I suggest you stay away from strangers and candy.

I witnessed gently to a sweet family of Hindus over a period of two years. I also prayed for them many times. Eventually, they asked if they could come with me to my church. I was thrilled to have them accompany me.

The 22 year old daughter, I am pleased to report, has converted to Christianity!

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, he spent two fucking years working on these people! Does that sound like sharing to you? If they were happy with their faith, what right does he have to wear them down until they convert?

Missionaries use food, health care, education, technology, fear, and whatever else they can find to bribe, manipulate and scare native people into conversion. Do you think that's ethical?

And as far as atheists go, of course I think we'd be better off without organized religion (especially the predatory evangelical kind), but most of us could give a fuck less what you believe as long as you keep it where it belongs.

I don't try to de-convert christians and I don't know any atheist who does, and if I ever found one who spent two years trying to do what Zeb did, I would express the same amount of revulsion and outrage.


And before you invoke the angry atheist meme, I know plenty of christians who agree with me on this one.

[bryant69]

165. Well conversion means different things to different religions

I would imagine. If converting someone meant "arguing with them till you wore them out" than I'd be inclined to agree. I'm also not keen on providing help to people who need help contingent on them converting.

But conversion to me means having an experience with the divine - and how do you make somebody have that? You can't. You can just provide the opportunity for them to seek out such an experience for themselves.

But since you don't believe in the divine, than this probably doesn't sound any different than "Let's take two years to wear them down."

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

166. I don't need to believe in the divine to know what evangelizing is.

All I have to do is ask my catholic co-worker whose daughters are "encouraged" to convert almost daily in school by loving and concerned chrisians like Zeb.

And by encouraged, I mean mocked, coerced and bullied.

[bryant69]

167. Ok - well there really isn't that much point to discussing this with you

I've said my piece above, anyway.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

168. Why, because I called what Zeb does obscene?

Because I'm disgusted by evangelists and missionaries and referred to them as predators?

Or because I didn't kiss your ass, apologize repeatedly and insert even more qualifiers in my posts?

I've been very specific about whom and what I was criticizing.

If you're still unclear whether or not you're included, it's your fault, not mine.

[bryant69]

169. I'd be grateful if you refrained from kissing my ass

but of course I am included. If nothing else, I include myself.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

170. Don't worry.

And your voluntary inclusion of yourself whenever other christians are being discussed is no doubt one of the reasons why you think we're "out to get" you.

I include qualifiers because I don't want to offend liberal believers.

If you're not one, feel free to be offended as often and as much as you like.

You have my blessing.

[bryant69]

171. I'm not offended - but I don't know how a liberal Christian

can ignore the great commission quoted above.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

172. Do you ignore it?

Or do you just temper it with courtesy and respect for the beliefs of others?

IMHO, liberal christians don't make it their mission to convert others.

Isn't the passage posted in the op open to interpretation like everything else in the bible?




On edit, you have a point. Fundamentalists claim that liberal christians aren't "real" christians because they don't take the bible literally.
I disagree, but like you said, what do I know?

[bryant69]

173. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he

Tempering the desire to bring others to the light of Christ with courtesy and respect is probably preferable to being a jerk for Christ pushing people around and shoving religion down peoples throats. But the end result is the same - as much as I might respect a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or an Atheist, I think they are wrong about some fundamental points and I think they'd be better off if they joined my sect.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

174. You mean you're like everyone else ?

Get outta here!! :D


Seriously, bryant, we ALL think we're right. If I thought your belief was right and my lack of it was wrong, I'd be a christian. And if you thought I was right, you'd be an atheist.

I welcome new atheists but I don't try to convert and collect them like action figures in cereal boxes.


What makes liberalism so great is that we can all agree to disagree on things like the existence of gods and concentrate on making sure everyone is free to believe in them or not.

[salvorhardin]

175. Bravo

Nicely done.

[beam me up scottie]

179. Oh good.

I was afraid that would be misunderstood. :)

[SPKrazy]

176. Great Post BMUS

Gods and government don't mix-ever!

that's what this great experiment called America is supposed to be about

all the damned people who think we should be a fundocracy are insane

hell, I'm beginning to think all religious people are insane and see myself lining up more with the non-religious and the atheists who have no agenda other than to keep our country free from religious persecution!

:yourock: :yourock: :hug: :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

177. Thanks, SPK.

:yourock: too! :loveya:

I hope you're well, my friend.

[SPKrazy]

178. Hey, I'm As Well As I Can Be!

thought I'd venture into the R/T forum and see what's up!

:pals:

Hope you are well too!

[beam me up scottie]

180. Oh you know it.

I'm glad to see you here. We have some new faces, it's good to let them see that most of us agree on the important things.

[SPKrazy]

181. We Agree On More Than We Disagree I Imagine

and the rest is really petty BS

Freedom to not be told what to believe in
that's what this country is about in my opinion

:o

[Zebedeo]

182. LOL

You really crack me up, bmus!

I "prey on" them? I "manipulate" them? You can't possibly have gotten that from my post, so it must have come from your own preconceptions and prejudices about religion and religious people.

You claim to believe in the American ideal of freedom to worship or not worship, but in practice you seem bitterly opposed to such freedom when it is exercised in favor of practicing Christianity.

It appears that you only support religious freedom when a person chooses to be an atheist or to practice some non-Christian religion. You seem to have a strong bias against Christians, perhaps stemming from your feeling that you are forced to work with them.

I can tell you that I am in no sense a predator-evangelist, and that your characterizing me as such simply reveals your own perverse prejudice against Christians and Christianity.

Since you don't believe in any deity or deities, you must think that Hinduism is a harmful superstition or at least a waste of valuable time, no? Or is it only Christianity that merits your scorn?

[kiahzero]

183. LOL indeed.

Singling Christianity out might have something to do with the fact that, in the vast scope of religious thought, it is one of only two that continues to be predatory in modern times.

Interestingly enough, the other one happens to be Abrahamic as well.

[beam me up scottie]

184. You need to take a course in reading comprehension, Zeb.

Either you didn't read my post, can't read my post, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

I "prey on" them? I "manipulate" them? You can't possibly have gotten that from my post, so it must have come from your own preconceptions and prejudices about religion and religious people.

Criticizing the predatory nature of evangelism has nothing to do with criticizing religious people or religion in general. And since many people of faith in this thread agree with me, you're barking up the wrong tree.

You claim to believe in the American ideal of freedom to worship or not worship, but in practice you seem bitterly opposed to such freedom when it is exercised in favor of practicing Christianity.

I'm not opposed to christianity or freedom of religion at all. That's why I think spiritual predators are unethical.

It appears that you only support religious freedom when a person chooses to be an atheist or to practice some non-Christian religion. You seem to have a strong bias against Christians, perhaps stemming from your feeling that you are forced to work with them.

Sorry, darlin, I have always thought religious predators were despicable, so your attempt to make this about prejudice or draw a connection to my place of employment is as pathetic as your attempt to justify spending two years destroying a hindu family's faith.

I can tell you that I am in no sense a predator-evangelist, and that your characterizing me as such simply reveals your own perverse prejudice against Christians and Christianity.

Sorry, attempting to destroy the faith of others is unethical, Zeb. And again, many christians agree with me

Since you don't believe in any deity or deities, you must think that Hinduism is a harmful superstition or at least a waste of valuable time, no? Or is it only Christianity that merits your scorn?

Blah blah blah, BMUS hates christians, blah blah blah.

Lather rinse repeat.




As an atheist who believes in freedom of religion, I think that you and everyone else should leave other people the hell alone if they're comfortable in their faith.

As an evangelist, you think you have the right to destroy the faith of other people so that they will accept your god and your religious belief.



Now which one of us is intolerant of the religious faith of others?





And next time, don't ask for my opinion if you don't want it, Zeb, because I'm hardly known for sugarcoating it.

[kiahzero]

112. Disgusting.

"Believe this, or suffer forever!"

How... "life-affirming." :puke:

[beam me up scottie]

121. Oh, if you like that, you'll have to catch Evoman's play:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=57131

a preview:

Evoman: YOU DISOBEYED ME. For doing that, I'm going to inject you with Aids. Then I'm going to throw you out in the streets so you'll get raped and beaten. Then I'm going to make sure all of your kids, if they survive the aids, will be suffer for this. They build a house, I'll knock it down. SUFFER

He has a gift.

[Evoman]

123. Ah yes, my treatise on the Garden of Eden and original sin.

Lol...sometimes I can't believe people like those plays so much. Okay, yeah, they are sort of funny, but they are so badly written!

[beam me up scottie]

124. LOL! It's part of the charm!

Besides, atheists love a smartass - look at how we worship George Carlin and Lewis Black.

[Evoman]

113. Lol...I fail to see the point in praying for someone else to be saved.

I mean, god can't affect their free will, right. The hindus aren't automotons, right? Whats the point?

Hehe..pray for me Zeb. Maybe when I wake up tommorow, I will have "seen the light" :rofl: .

Good luck with your conversions. I'm going to anti-pray that you fail, just in case god does exist. My prayer is totally going to cancel yours out. *snicker*

[kiahzero]

116. I'll put in a few words with Eris

Maybe she'll convince them all to convert to Buddhism, just to fuck with him.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

137. And Buddhists can be atheists!

Buddhists can be atheists! Buddha is an enlightened person. He is NOT worshipped as a god.


Buddha distilled Hinduism down to its essence of dharma (truth) and karma and such. He got rid of the gods and would not answer questions about gods.

They got no problem with atheists. And I happen to think that is cool.

[kiahzero]

138. Yeah, I know. (n/t)

[beam me up scottie]

163. Welcome to DU, Perragrande!

And welcome to the Arena.

Any liberal who lives in Texas will do just fine here. :D

[Zebedeo]

125. A - HAAAA!

I'm going to anti-pray that you fail, just in case god does exist.

I knew you had it in you! Good for you!

[Evoman]

139. Don't get too excited. I prayed to the Hindu god Shiva.

[salvorhardin]

120. Can I just say, Eww!?

I've known a good number of Christian friends over the years who most assuredly do not approach witnessing with your parasitical zeal.

[MikeH]

110. I always felt uncomfortable about evangelism when I was a Christian

I remember going to meetings of Kampus Krusade for Khrist when I first became serious about Christianity right at the time I turned 20. They were very big on evangelism and the Great Commission, particularly since they believed that people were lost without Christ, and would go to hell if they didn't accept Christ in this lifetime.

I was involved with them only a short time, and found that I had some serious problems with the things they believed.

Even as a more liberal Christian, I still felt uncomfortable about the duty of evangelism, or sharing my faith with other people. I tried it a few times, particularly with some people in my family, and was not at all happy with the results.

After being serious about Christianity for a period of about 15 years in my life, I finally came to the realization that Christianity, and supposedly having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, had not at all helped me in enabling me to better deal with anything that was a source of personal pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life.

That being the case, evangelism toward others became a moot issue. What was there for me to tell others about?

Eventually, over a period of time, I came to absolve myself of any duties imposed by the Christian faith. And I feel happy about having done so.

[DeSwiss]

164. Heaven and Earth, for me herein lies the problem....

You stated:

"These are reported to be the very words of Jesus, so I can't negate that part of the Bible by saying that it belongs to the Old Testament and isn't applicable any more."

If your premise for what are purportedly statements from Jesus, then it would appear to me that first one must ascertain the validity of the statements attributed to him.

It is a common mistake made by many, to envision the world in which the early religions evolved, through our "modern-world" eyes. When in fact that world was extremely far removed from our own in terms of how such beliefs took hold. Remember that for almost all of history until the past 100 - 150 years, the vast majority of people on earth were totally illiterate. The power of words was controlled by the state and religion (and nothing much has changed since then). This means that communication by the state and religion used both the spoken word and ritual to get their points across. And when one adds the force of the state to this nascent religious effort upon a dire and unintelligent populus, it becomes much easier to see how the credulity of most people were overcome. Believe or die.

Now, given that the spoken word was the baseline utilized by the majority of people to communicate ideas, there is obviously going to be mutations within the spoken word over time. From the bible's recordation of the death of Jesus, another 300+ elapsed before Constantine I adopted Christianity as the state religion. And during all this time, several versions of the life and times of Jesus were recorded, principally in Greek, but also Aramaic. So we have mutations from spoken word to spoken word during the passage of centuries, we have translation from a variety of ancient foreign tongues to other ancient foreign tongues. And then we have the later translations of these ancient tongues into Latin, and then later still into Low German, Old and Middle English (KJV). And most importantly of all, we have politics.

The attempts by Constantine I and Pope Silvester I to tamp down dissent and disagreement to achieve and clear and unequivocal message, was the business of the First Council of Nicea. In addition to eliminating so-called "heretical" beliefs, this also led to the decision to "vote" for the books that now appear in the NT of bibles. Which also meant the voting down of other books and writings. The book of John made it by a single vote! And one cannot dispute the advantages gained by the inclusion of the Book of Revelations as a final word to cast fear into the hearts of any doubters of what awaited them if they failed to succumb to the religious message.

This of course led to the church's first great schism with the eastern orthodox and since its beginnings, there has been dispute over doctrine and scripture. So in my view, the issues of whether Jesus sought the proselytizing Christianity to others, is no issue at all. Given the bulk of the story of Jesus' life, I would have to say it seems antithetical to all the other things he purportedly stood for. The message of love for one's neighbor is paramount to all else as he himself is attributed with saying, or rather repeating an old Jewish hominem. So for me, that message is all the message one needs. And that message is to be demonstrated, not preached.

IMHO

Merry ChristmaHanuKwanzakah and FSM Day!!!