Proselytizing

[rreppy]

No Buddhist monk has ever come to my door on a Sunday morning and confronted me about whether or not I was "saved". I like that. I feel if you are confident that your religion is worthwhile, then you should have faith that people will find it and be convinced on its own merits, without the need of a bunch of pushy salespersons trying to "close a deal".
I admire the fact that the Dalai Lama, in almost every speech he makes to westerners, exhorts them to stay in the religion of their upbringing and merely explore whether Buddhism might have some tools and insights they may find useful. I could never imagine in a million years the Dalai Lama doing what Christian missionaries have done, going into foreign cultures and blasting their native religions as lies and blasphemies, destroying their works of art, burning their books, and telling them tales about how they will "burn in torment forever" if they don't convert.
Islam, of course, is even worse; the first 500 years of its history was "convert or die by my sword, infidel scum!".
I say, let a person find their own path and make up their own mind. Don't insult me by calling my beliefs inferior to your own and then shoving yours down my throat. A worthy religion shouldn't have to proselytize. Don't demean spirituality to the level of a popularity contest.

[Burninglight]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

Snake oil? um, I would have thought that way as well that is if it hadn't been for my personal encounters with God communicating with my spirit in such a way that I cannot deny my conviction. That is why I don't judge you and can even see you as better than myself for the simple reason of circumstances: for instance, if you had been exposed to the spiritual encounters I had, you might be a better believer than me. I don't know why God hasn't revealed Himself to you. I asked Him to show himself to me, I got what I asked for. Have you done that?
If you say "I will not ask, because I know God is just snake oil," i imagine God will continue to be nothing to you.

But in some ways, Jesus is snake oil. He is the real snake oil; for instance, when he died on the cross, he became sin. All the sin of the world was placed on Him. He became a snake so we could be holy. He died so we could live; he became poor so we could be rich.
Moses held the snake up in the wilderness and the children of Israel were healed on the spot when they look at it. That serpent represents Jesus Christ only Moses didn't know it at the time. They will look on whom they have pierced.

Also Moses hitting the rock and water comes out to save the people represents Christ. God told Moses to speak to the rock the second time but he disobeyed and God dealt with him. He was told to speak to the rock to signify that Jesus was crucified once for sin; now, all we have to do is speak to the rock (pray). That is the Rock of our salvation.

Everything points to Christ. Even the Passover the lambs blood on the post of their doors saved them from death. Jesus is the lamb of God and with his blood applied to our hearts the angel that claims souls for hell and death passes us by. I believe that if God draws us to Christ and we reject it while we are alive on earth, it is at peril for the death angel will claim us at death. For it is appointed unto to man once to die after that comes the judgment. We are free to choose but never free from the consequences of those choices. If we choose wisely, the consequences will be good. But no one can just choose to come to Christ; God must draw them. At that time, they can make a choice!

[Goat]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

Snake oil? um, I would have thought that way as well that is if it hadn't been for my personal encounters with God communicating with my spirit in such a way that I cannot deny my conviction. That is why I don't judge you and can even see you as better than myself for the simple reason of circumstances: for instance, if you had been exposed to the spiritual encounters I had, you might be a better believer than me. I don't know why God hasn't revealed Himself to you. I asked Him to show himself to me, I got what I asked for. Have you done that?
If you say "I will not ask, because I know God is just snake oil," i imagine God will continue to be nothing to you.

People have many emotional events in their life. Can you show that your 'encounters with God' are from an external source, or is it possible that it is a culturally directed interpretation of a internally generated emotional event?

[Burninglight]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

Snake oil? um, I would have thought that way as well that is if it hadn't been for my personal encounters with God communicating with my spirit in such a way that I cannot deny my conviction. That is why I don't judge you and can even see you as better than myself for the simple reason of circumstances: for instance, if you had been exposed to the spiritual encounters I had, you might be a better believer than me. I don't know why God hasn't revealed Himself to you. I asked Him to show himself to me, I got what I asked for. Have you done that?
If you say "I will not ask, because I know God is just snake oil," i imagine God will continue to be nothing to you.

People have many emotional events in their life. Can you show that your 'encounters with God' are from an external source, or is it possible that it is a culturally directed interpretation of a internally generated emotional event?

There is no doubt that people are led by emotions. I know of a guy who left a cult and got into a car accident thinking it was God dealing with him so he went back in. I guess there is superstition and emotional incidents and coincidences in ones life that play a part. But I look at my experiences and I believe they were real. Can I prove to you or even myself that they were external the answer is NO, Will that stop me from believing in God the answer is NO. But I can say I don't trust emotion or feeling they make a nice servant but very poor leader.

It just doesn't make sense that we are here for such a short time an then its over. The spiritual realm is no imaginary deal. There are other dimensions even scientist are exploring the paranormal. The question is not whether spiritual world or beings exists, it is whether we have been deceived into following the evil Principalities and spiritual wickedness in high places that interact with us unawares. These demons love when we don't believe they exist they have us were they want. Look at it this way. If God is the same as the spaghetti monster then I wasted a portion of my life and I am one miserable person and then it is over and nothing matters anymore.

We are all going to suffer & sacrifice in life. If God doesn't exist like you believe I'll be sorry that I didn't eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, but that is just it, I would not feel sorry, because I would be dead, and it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't bother me either way, cause it is like I never existed, but if God exists like I say, I am accountable and will give account before the judge of the universe, and I will have an eternity to kick myself in the butt along with a bunch of other demons doing it to me forever. NO thank you; As for me and my house we will serve the Lord

[1robin]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

[Goat]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

[nyan-eleven]

[1robin]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

Of course it is a Christian way of looking at things but that is no reason to reject it. (your doing so reveals the real problem here, you don't like it so it can't be true)
If it is possible that Christianity is true then my point about non-compulsory evangalism is indesputable. Your comment expressing doubt about man's inherent sinfulness is so obviously incorrect I have no response. I suppose that Stalin, Hitler, ritual sacrifice, and slavery are all hallmarks of our rightousness.

[Goat]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Why, yes, yes, that is a crude example. That cruide and threatening example is precisely why the 'you are all sinners' as a marketing ploy is , in itself evil.


Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

Of course it is a Christian way of looking at things but that is no reason to reject it. (your doing so reveals the real problem here, you don't like it so it can't be true)
If it is possible that Christianity is true then my point about non-compulsory evangalism is indesputable. Your comment expressing doubt about man's inherent sinfulness is so obviously incorrect I have no response. I suppose that Stalin, Hitler, ritual sacrifice, and slavery are all hallmarks of our rightousness.

I find the 'oh, some people are evil there fore we are all sinners ' and beating to heck the concept on how bad and evil people are is evil in itself. It IS the technique that many abusers do it to their spouse to control them though.

And, when it comes to the 'Christian way ' .. no, it shouldn't be rejected because it is Christian, it should be rejected because that abusive and controlling technique is evil in and of itself.

Trying to sell the idea that 'oh, you are an evil person, and need the guidence of my personal beliefs' is egotistical, obnoxious, annoying to no end, and disrespectful of everyone else. People don't need to have that kind of religion shoved down their throats.

[1robin]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Why, yes, yes, that is a crude example. That crude and threatening example is precisely why the 'you are all sinners' as a marketing ploy is , in itself evil.


Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

Of course it is a Christian way of looking at things but that is no reason to reject it. (your doing so reveals the real problem here, you don't like it so it can't be true)
If it is possible that Christianity is true then my point about non-compulsory evangalism is indisputable. Your comment expressing doubt about man's inherent sinfulness is so obviously incorrect I have no response. I suppose that Stalin, Hitler, ritual sacrifice, and slavery are all hallmarks of our righteousness.

I find the 'oh, some people are evil there fore we are all sinners ' and beating to heck the concept on how bad and evil people are is evil in itself. It IS the technique that many abusers do it to their spouse to control them though.

And, when it comes to the 'Christian way ' .. no, it shouldn't be rejected because it is Christian, it should be rejected because that abusive and controlling technique is evil in and of itself.

Trying to sell the idea that 'oh, you are an evil person, and need the guidance of my personal beliefs' is egotistical, obnoxious, annoying to no end, and disrespectful of everyone else. People don't need to have that kind of religion shoved down their throats.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Just kidding, but every point you made could be used a textbook case for what the bible predicts will result from man's fallen nature. You have a distorted and completely unrealistic view of Christianity. Christ never compelled anyone to do anything he merely asserted, proved, and demonstrated what the bible predicts and offered a solution if we but admit we have a problem. Any argument that depends on the inherent righteousness of human moral conduct is defeated before it begins by it's own assumption. The pages of human history are replete with man's inhumanity toward man and it is necessary and obvious to admit the problem before any corrections can be undertaken. How can you even imply an objective moral evil by which to judge Christianity without assuming Christianity exists to justify the objective standard. It is obvious you hate the concept of being accountable to a Christian God and your distorted view of the religion is an outworking of this fact. It would be far more credible and intellectually honest to admit the obvious moral problem that man has and introduce some other cause or solution. If you deny reality in the beginning whatever fallows is a waste of time.

[Goat]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Why, yes, yes, that is a crude example. That crude and threatening example is precisely why the 'you are all sinners' as a marketing ploy is , in itself evil.


Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

Of course it is a Christian way of looking at things but that is no reason to reject it. (your doing so reveals the real problem here, you don't like it so it can't be true)
If it is possible that Christianity is true then my point about non-compulsory evangalism is indisputable. Your comment expressing doubt about man's inherent sinfulness is so obviously incorrect I have no response. I suppose that Stalin, Hitler, ritual sacrifice, and slavery are all hallmarks of our righteousness.

I find the 'oh, some people are evil there fore we are all sinners ' and beating to heck the concept on how bad and evil people are is evil in itself. It IS the technique that many abusers do it to their spouse to control them though.

And, when it comes to the 'Christian way ' .. no, it shouldn't be rejected because it is Christian, it should be rejected because that abusive and controlling technique is evil in and of itself.

Trying to sell the idea that 'oh, you are an evil person, and need the guidance of my personal beliefs' is egotistical, obnoxious, annoying to no end, and disrespectful of everyone else. People don't need to have that kind of religion shoved down their throats.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Just kidding, but every point you made could be used a textbook case for what the bible predicts will result from man's fallen nature. You have a distorted and completely unrealistic view of Christianity. Christ never compelled anyone to do anything he merely asserted, proved, and demonstrated what the bible predicts and offered a solution if we but admit we have a problem. Any argument that depends on the inherent righteousness of human moral conduct is defeated before it begins by it's own assumption. The pages of human history are replete with man's inhumanity toward man and it is necessary and obvious to admit the problem before any corrections can be undertaken. How can you even imply an objective moral evil by which to judge Christianity without assuming Christianity exists to justify the objective standard. It is obvious you hate the concept of being accountable to a Christian God and your distorted view of the religion is an outworking of this fact. It would be far more credible and intellectually honest to admit the obvious moral problem that man has and introduce some other cause or solution. If you deny reality in the beginning whatever fallows is a waste of time.

I am judging Christianity by how the people who practice it use it. In this case, I am judging the method of proclaiming everyone a sinner, but WAIT , We have an answer to this disease.

And I bet you couldn't show me , in context, passages in the bible that predict that. One thing I noticed about many people who proclaim themselves Christian is that they lift single sentences out of the Bible to string them together to make a theology so much different than what the original passages are trying to say.

I do find it ironic that the two examples you use learned about evil people (Hitler and Stalin) received their moral training at the hands of Christianity. Hitler proclaimed himself to be inspired to the Holocaust by Christianity, and Stalin was educated in a seminar.