Proselytization Requires Proof

[Zzyzx]

[flitzerbiest]

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

Pick your poison. Harboring the belief that those who don't think the same things about God that you do is not only illogical (given the loving character you claim for God)

Note: I never specifically stated what I believe about God, you assume that I think God's only trait is love?

, but a deeply insulting claim at spiritual superiority. If I were to hold the belief that unless you give me $400, you would die in a tragic Segway accident, would you consider it an act of love if I kept knocking on your door to tell you that giving me the money was only for your own good, and you had better get on with it before it was too late?

The evidence for my Segway belief (i.e. subjective experience) is identical to your Hell belief, and it doesn't even demand a logically inconsistent characterization of an invisible being.

Not a very comparative analogy. I never said that coercion was the proper way. My point was exactly what I said. I was asking if it was a logical thought process if the existence of God is assumed.

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

Nope. Your nightmares are your own business. Keep them to yourself.

[Noodles]

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

Pick your poison. Harboring the belief that those who don't think the same things about God that you do is not only illogical (given the loving character you claim for God)

Note: I never specifically stated what I believe about God, you assume that I think God's only trait is love?

, but a deeply insulting claim at spiritual superiority. If I were to hold the belief that unless you give me $400, you would die in a tragic Segway accident, would you consider it an act of love if I kept knocking on your door to tell you that giving me the money was only for your own good, and you had better get on with it before it was too late?

The evidence for my Segway belief (i.e. subjective experience) is identical to your Hell belief, and it doesn't even demand a logically inconsistent characterization of an invisible being.

Not a very comparative analogy. I never said that coercion was the proper way. My point was exactly what I said. I was asking if it was a logical thought process if the existence of God is assumed.

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

Nope. Your nightmares are your own business. Keep them to yourself.

Do explain with more than a subtle insult please. I wasn't asking you to believe, I wasn't even telling you that you were wrong. I was only asking a question.

[Zzyzx]

.

Proselytization Requires Proof

Where in the definition of proselytism does it say that proof is required?

It doesn't. I do not remember what I had in mind back in July '08.

I withdraw the comment. What I can legitimately say is that any attempt at proselytization directed toward me (or perhaps any person who thinks analytically or critically) will require "proof" (at least strong evidence) to be convincing.

I would agree with you though. As a Christian I research and debate precisely so that when I do talk to others I can provide reasoning as to why I believe. Everyone should at least be able to make a strong inductive argument for their own worldview.

Good ideas.

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

What anyone "should do" according to their ideology is debatable when the action in question involves convincing others to accept that ideology. For an extreme example to make the point -- if a person's chosen beliefs require that a man have at least three wives in order to "reach the celestial kingdom" (an actual belief of the FLDS cult), "should" believers attempt to convince others to accept their beliefs?


Edited to add: If one's beliefs require that males be circumcised "to get to heaven" (or whatever), "should" they attempt to convince couples to circumcise their infant sons? Should the same apply to "female circumcision" (removal of the clitoris)?

[Noodles]

Proselytization Requires Proof

Where in the definition of proselytism does it say that proof is required?

It doesn't. I do not remember what I had in mind back in July '08.

I withdraw the comment. What I can legitimately say is that any attempt at proselytization directed toward me (or perhaps any person who thinks analytically or critically) will require "proof" (at least strong evidence) to be convincing.

I'm sorry, I didn't check the date, forgive me for dredging up an old topic. I was merely intrigued by it.

Would you agree though that christians should proselytize, especially if they believe that everyone who doesn't believe will go to Hell? It would be hypocritical not to tell people.

What anyone "should do" according to their ideology is debatable when the action in question involves convincing others to accept that ideology. For an extreme example to make the point -- if a person's chosen beliefs require that a man have at least three wives in order to "reach the celestial kingdom" (an actual belief of the FLDS cult), "should" believers attempt to convince others to accept their beliefs?


Edited to add: If one's beliefs require that males be circumcised "to get to heaven" (or whatever), "should" they attempt to convince couples to circumcise their infant sons? Should the same apply to "female circumcision" (removal of the clitoris)?

I see your point. Which is why I stated my question so specifically, as to avoid a general comparison to other "shoulds".

[Zzyzx]

.

I didn't check the date

There is nothing wrong with reopening an old topic if it is of interest. However, as in this case, originators of, or contributors to the thread may not recall their thinking from long ago.

I see your point. Which is why I stated my question so specifically, as to avoid a general comparison to other "shoulds".

In spite of our best efforts sometimes threads become more "shotgun" than "rifle".

[Noodles]

.

I didn't check the date

There is nothing wrong with reopening an old topic if it is of interest. However, as in this case, originators of, or contributors to the thread may not recall their thinking from long ago.

I see your point. Which is why I stated my question so specifically, as to avoid a general comparison to other "shoulds".

In spite of our best efforts sometimes threads become more "shotgun" than "rifle".

I would agree in both cases.