Is Christian Evangelism a threat to our way of life?

[JimC]

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

Why should people of religion stay "out of people's faces?" This is the same as saying that their beliefs and practices are less worthy than yours, which is both arrogant and entirely untrue. They have a right to proselytize and express themselves freely just as you do. If you don't like their message, then don't listen to it.

People also have a perfect right to let their religion inform their politics and to choose both laws and representatives that will uphold their moral beliefs, whether they are based in religion (as all such beliefs are to one extent or another) or they are based in atheistic sentiments. Each of us has the right to argue that society and government should conform to our moral beliefs, and ultimately the decision is made by the people as a whole to what extent religion affects government.

Anything else is tyranny by the atheistic minority, and history proves that leads to the worst sort of despotism, tyranny and mass murder.

You're just going to have to get used to the notion that religion exists and learn to live with people of religion, not vice versa, because they radically outnumber you and its their right to create a society that satisfies their needs and desires every bit as much as you do.

I am not the sort of atheist who would advocate banning religions (if any atheists ever do), so that is very much a staw man. What does concern me is the agressive attempts at conversion by door-knocking etc. Basically, religion needs to look after its own little flock, and stop the predatory prowling around for converts...

The other strand to the argument is to limit the attempts by religions of various sorts to insert their agenda into the political process. They should leave that to Caesar...

[Nicko]

I am not the sort of atheist who would advocate banning religions (if any atheists ever do), so that is very much a staw man. What does concern me is the agressive attempts at conversion by door-knocking etc. Basically, religion needs to look after its own little flock, and stop the predatory prowling around for converts...

Meh. Doesn't really bother me. I feel sorry for most of them. What a depressing and soul-destroying way to spend your free time. I mean how often does someone rousted out of bed on Saturday morning respond with, "You know, I was just thinking that I need to let Jesus into my life. Come in!"

The other strand to the argument is to limit the attempts by religions of various sorts to insert their agenda into the political process. They should leave that to Caesar...

This is the real concern. I have no problem with people being religious themselves and attempting to apply that religion to their own lives if they so choose. They're wrong of course, but it's a free country. If someone wants to propose a policy or a piece of legislation that affects wider society however, they should be able to provide real reasons to support it.

[Tero]

We are in Wisconsin. There are at least a couple of abortion clinics left cause I passed one.

Looks like 4 for 5 million people.

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/wisconsin.html

[Seth]

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

You're just going to have to get used to the notion that religion exists and learn to live with people of religion, not vice versa, because they radically outnumber you and its their right to create a society that satisfies their needs and desires every bit as much as you do.

What about Voluntary Euthanasia?

What about it? It's proper name is "suicide" and if you're determined, nobody can stop you from killing yourself.

The question is: Does your experience on earth affect your experience of the eternal afterlife?

If it does, then God doesn't seem to be being very fair on people that die (very) young, as they would be unable to fully participate in eternity.

What leads you to the belief that God has to be "fair?"

If the experience of eternity, of people that die (very) young (perhaps even before they have developed language) is in no way diminished, then continued experience of earth has no value.

Sez who?

The 3 score and 10 will seem like a blink where compared against the infinity of eternity, so there is no reason for believers to continue their experience on earth. In fact as it would improve things for the rest of us, surely it is their duty to vacate as soon as possible?

Not if God tells them not to.

[Seth]

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

Why should people of religion stay "out of people's faces?" This is the same as saying that their beliefs and practices are less worthy than yours, which is both arrogant and entirely untrue. They have a right to proselytize and express themselves freely just as you do. If you don't like their message, then don't listen to it.

People also have a perfect right to let their religion inform their politics and to choose both laws and representatives that will uphold their moral beliefs, whether they are based in religion (as all such beliefs are to one extent or another) or they are based in atheistic sentiments. Each of us has the right to argue that society and government should conform to our moral beliefs, and ultimately the decision is made by the people as a whole to what extent religion affects government.

Anything else is tyranny by the atheistic minority, and history proves that leads to the worst sort of despotism, tyranny and mass murder.

You're just going to have to get used to the notion that religion exists and learn to live with people of religion, not vice versa, because they radically outnumber you and its their right to create a society that satisfies their needs and desires every bit as much as you do.

I am not the sort of atheist who would advocate banning religions (if any atheists ever do), so that is very much a staw man. What does concern me is the agressive attempts at conversion by door-knocking etc. Basically, religion needs to look after its own little flock, and stop the predatory prowling around for converts...

Why should they limit themselves? After all, they are trying to save you from an eternity of hellfire and brimstone, so they're actually trying to do you a favor. Perhaps if you viewed their proselytizing in that light, you might be more tolerant of their efforts. You can always say "no thanks" and walk away.

The other strand to the argument is to limit the attempts by religions of various sorts to insert their agenda into the political process. They should leave that to Caesar...

That's what the First Amendment is for.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:
Why should they limit themselves? After all, they are trying to save you from an eternity of hellfire and brimstone, so they're actually trying to do you a favor. Perhaps if you viewed their proselytizing in that light, you might be more tolerant of their efforts. You can always say "no thanks" and walk away.

I certainly can, and do (although forget the "thanks"...)

However, some prosletysing religions are experts in finding people in a state of emotional vulnerability, and exploiting that to the hilt. I'm not talking about low-key, main-stream denominations here, but the ones that door-knock are also the ones who can, and do, suck people in, often to reap financial rewards from them as well. If you don't know this goes on, you've got your head in the sand.

Try finding present-day atheist groups who operate in the same way...

[Nicko]

What leads you to the belief that God has to be "fair?"

Well, the Christian God is depicted as not only fair, but infinitely so.

But it is a good point. As a hypothesis, "Malignant Design" explains much more about the world than do most "Omnipotent/Omnicient/Omnibenevolent" theological models. I mean, if your god looks like this ...



... you have something of a problem with that whole "whence cometh evil" thing. Whereas, if he looks like this ...



... it becomes clear that evil cometh anytime it wakes up and feels hungry.

[JimC]

^^^^^^^

Shades of William Blake...

[Svartalf]

never managed to get around Blake, but that reimagining of Cthulhu is interesting.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:
Why should they limit themselves? After all, they are trying to save you from an eternity of hellfire and brimstone, so they're actually trying to do you a favor. Perhaps if you viewed their proselytizing in that light, you might be more tolerant of their efforts. You can always say "no thanks" and walk away.

I certainly can, and do (although forget the "thanks"...)

However, some prosletysing religions are experts in finding people in a state of emotional vulnerability, and exploiting that to the hilt. I'm not talking about low-key, main-stream denominations here, but the ones that door-knock are also the ones who can, and do, suck people in, often to reap financial rewards from them as well. If you don't know this goes on, you've got your head in the sand.

Try finding present-day atheist groups who operate in the same way...

Assholes abound everywhere, but once again, as usual, atheists use the bad behavior of a few individuals to malign and demean billions of perfectly nice people who just want to practice their religion in peace, without taking advantage of anyone.

I've no problem excoriating those who use religion to defraud and harm people, but that does NOT represent the majority, or even a significant minority of those who hold religious beliefs. Most Christian evangelism is well-meaning and benign and reflects a belief that Christianity offers people many good things that will help them in their daily lives, in addition to eternal salvation, and most Christians are perfectly nice and friendly people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k&NR=1[/youtube]

[Seth]

What leads you to the belief that God has to be "fair?"

Well, the Christian God is depicted as not only fair, but infinitely so.

But it is a good point. As a hypothesis, "Malignant Design" explains much more about the world than do most "Omnipotent/Omnicient/Omnibenevolent" theological models. I mean, if your god looks like this ...



... you have something of a problem with that whole "whence cometh evil" thing. Whereas, if he looks like this ...



... it becomes clear that evil cometh anytime it wakes up and feels hungry.

Well, Christians say that Satan is not ugly, he is beautiful. Indeed, he was an angel in heaven before he fell from grace. One is not seduced by the Gorgon, one is seduced by the Sirens. Christian theology constantly points out that Satan seeks to seduce us into evil not by frightening us with his ugliness and the threat of eternal torment, but rather he appeals to our hedonistic nature using pleasure and temporal reward to get us to turn away from God and life everlasting. The movie "The Devil's Advocate" is entirely based on a very accurate representation of Christian belief about the seductiveness of Satan. As Al Pacino says at one point, "They never see me coming" and he seduces Kevin (Kenau Reeves) precisely by pandering to his innermost desire to be an attorney who never loses a case.

My point, however, is that if God exists, and if God is a vengeful, jealous god who demands worship and obedience, it would be a pretty fucking good idea to obey him, whether he's omnibenevolent or not, because the penalty for disobedience is eternal torment. Therefore, those who seek to evangelize others to bring them to faith and obedience because they believe that either a) their god is a jealous one or b) their god offers the only path to salvation from eternal torment by Satan, are doing so with the best of intentions because (rightly or delusionally) they truly believe that obedience to their God is the best course and they care that you not be doomed to eternal torment.

And if they are right, well, Pascal had the right idea I suppose. And if they are wrong, again, Pascal found a way to peacefully and happily co-exist with those who might be more forceful in their desire to bring all mankind into obedience to God's commandments.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"My point, however, is that if God exists, and if God is a vengeful, jealous god who demands worship and obedience, it would be a pretty fucking good idea to obey him, whether he's omnibenevolent or not, because the penalty for disobedience is eternal torment. "

Go "Nuremburg Defense"!

[Seth]

"My point, however, is that if God exists, and if God is a vengeful, jealous god who demands worship and obedience, it would be a pretty fucking good idea to obey him, whether he's omnibenevolent or not, because the penalty for disobedience is eternal torment. "

Go "Nuremburg Defense"!

Sounds like common sense to me. Allowing one's ego to overwhelm one's good sense when facing a vastly superior force is a quick way to an unpleasant life. If one truly believes, that is. Fortunately, Christianity doesn't demand either obedience or that believers forcibly convert non believers on pain of eternal torment (or as a matter of policy, as in Islam), which means the atheist is free to reject the attempts of evangelizing Christians to save their souls. As a matter of common courtesy however, one ought not become riled up at the good-hearted attempts of evangelizers to persuade, so long as the attempts remain peaceable. Tolerance and polite rejection would seem to me to be the best way of maintaining societal peace and harmony in the face of Christian evangelism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sense is not common. If it was we wouldn't need traffic laws. Everything else you wrong is wrong too.