Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
4 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2010 - 7:11PM #11
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Thanks for your comments. I was starting to feel lonely on this topic. 


I know everyone has a right and desire to shout at the top of their lungs what makes them feel good. However, personally I feel proselytizing is more about telling people that "their way" is the "wrong way".


Peace be with you,


Mike/NAFOD

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2010 - 9:23PM #12
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,129

allthegoodnames:  Disorganized would be solo practitioners introspectively following the path that is most conducive to themselves and not trying to make sure that everyone else conformed with their understanding of a specific ideology.



Hey, my disorganization is very organized.  :)


Guessses:  However, personally I feel proselytizing is more about telling people that "their way" is the "wrong way".



To me, it turns the sacred into a brand name that must be marketed.  Ick.  God can create the universe but he needs a human-penned book to talk?  Fundies act that way, but my question then becomes, "If God needs the Bible to talk to you ... how did He talk to the authors?"

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 11:12AM #13
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Sep 2, 2010 -- 9:23PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Hey, my disorganization is very organized.  :)



 


Don't worry about me, I'm just here to maintain the chaos.   Wink


all



Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 4:17PM #14
TPaine
Posts: 9,262

Sep 2, 2010 -- 9:23PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


To me, it turns the sacred into a brand name that must be marketed.  Ick.  God can create the universe but he needs a human-penned book to talk?  Fundies act that way, but my question then becomes, "If God needs the Bible to talk to you ... how did He talk to the authors?"



In the movie, as I recall, Charlton Heston stood near the top of Mount Sinai, while God shot fire through the air and the fire wrote the Ten Commandments on a couple of tablet shaped rocks. That would be an impressive way to communicate. At least it made for cool special effects for a 1956 movie.

"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine: Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 12, 2010 - 9:13PM #15
MattieNow
Posts: 10

There are many religions that don't proselytize. Judaism is the first that comes to mind.


According to Wikipedia, Christian fundamentalism started with the Niagara Bible Conference in 1879-1880. The 1910 "General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ... distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":


One doesn't have to believe all these things to be an evangelical. Christian evangelicals, in the best sense of the word, are those who believe that to love other people means to share the news of salvation with them. It doesn't mean hitting people over the head with a Bible or making them confess a belief in Christ at the point of a sword.


Jesus let people make up their own minds whether to follow him. He could have been ruler of the world, but he didn't fall for that temptation.


I have a suspicion that a lot of people who call themselves Christians these days are not really.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 18, 2010 - 12:59AM #16
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 12, 2010 -- 9:13PM, MattieNow wrote:


There are many religions that don't proselytize. Judaism is the first that comes to mind.


According to Wikipedia, Christian fundamentalism started with the Niagara Bible Conference in 1879-1880. The 1910 "General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ... distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":


One doesn't have to believe all these things to be an evangelical. Christian evangelicals, in the best sense of the word, are those who believe that to love other people means to share the news of salvation with them. It doesn't mean hitting people over the head with a Bible or making them confess a belief in Christ at the point of a sword.


Jesus let people make up their own minds whether to follow him. He could have been ruler of the world, but he didn't fall for that temptation.


I have a suspicion that a lot of people who call themselves Christians these days are not really.




This seems like a proselytizing post. re:"... who believe that to love other people means to share the news of salvation with them. "


 

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 21, 2010 - 9:01AM #17
peterthesplitfish
Posts: 1,609

Shalom Mattie,


That might be the more modern creation of evangelism, but as far as Christianity goes, once orthodox Christianity was created by the Romans and became a state religion, there were few choices other then death to those who opposed it. It was the Romans and a Roman emperor who had the original followers of Yeshua killed for their beliefs. Then they altered the gospel to practice their own form of religion and all others were not allowed. Yeshua never once speaks of evangelism and the whole of what was the original gospel was completely allegory and not history or a narative. The story telling of the Gospels today are additions put in by followers of the orthodox movement that simply barrowed from Mithraism and a few other religions along the way.


Peter M.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2010 - 9:25PM #18
MattieNow
Posts: 10

Well, I am aware of the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church. I realize that a lot of evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. That is the main reason that I am not a particularly evangelical person, although I am a Christian believer.


You'll notice I said "an evangelical in the best sense of the word." I was trying to make a distinction between simple Christian evangelism -- the sharing of faith -- and the (in my opinion) hypocritical self-proclaimed Christians who intrude their religious beliefs into politics and are trying to take over the U.S. I think they have ulterior motives rather than just wanting to share a belief system that brings them joy and peace.


As you pointed out, the idea of a "Christian" state or empire doesn't work. As I attempted to point out, when Jesus was tempted with earthly kingdoms (Matthew 3:13), he turned the offer down. "The kingdoms of the world and all their splendor" apparently belong to Satan, since he was the one to offer them. In any case, Jesus knew it wasn't what God had in mind for him. 


If people were coerced into following God's laws, it wouldn't be of any value. God wants His followers to obey because they love Him.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 24, 2010 - 12:53AM #19
gorm-sionnach
Posts: 1,663

Sep 23, 2010 -- 9:25PM, MattieNow wrote:


Well, I am aware of the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church. I realize that a lot of evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. That is the main reason that I am not a particularly evangelical person, although I am a Christian believer.


You'll notice I said "an evangelical in the best sense of the word." I was trying to make a distinction between simple Christian evangelism -- the sharing of faith -- and the (in my opinion) hypocritical self-proclaimed Christians who intrude their religious beliefs into politics and are trying to take over the U.S. I think they have ulterior motives rather than just wanting to share a belief system that brings them joy and peace.


As you pointed out, the idea of a "Christian" state or empire doesn't work. As I attempted to point out, when Jesus was tempted with earthly kingdoms (Matthew 3:13), he turned the offer down. "The kingdoms of the world and all their splendor" apparently belong to Satan, since he was the one to offer them. In any case, Jesus knew it wasn't what God had in mind for him. 


If people were coerced into following God's laws, it wouldn't be of any value. God wants His followers to obey because they love Him.




I do not see it as an alterior motive, nor as being necessarily hypocritical; rather I think it is  an overt expression of their world view, and of their utter conviction that everyone the world over (and especially the country they live in) NEEDS TO BE A CHRISTIAN (as they defie it). There are certainly groups among the RR who go the way of stealth and subterfuge, the so called "Family" as discussed by Jeff Sharlett comes to mind; but there are many other groups who are not so subtle.


They are vocal, they are passionate, they are "on fire for Christ" and will do all in their power to shape the world to their worldview, and spread the good news to all, regardless of the proselytized's reception or want for such "news". I do not think they are so oblivious as to not be aware of what they are doing. Nor do I find them particularly hypocritical, they believe with all that they are in the need for Salvation through Christ, and extend this to their mission work, so that everyone should believe as they do.


It becomes hypocricy when they realize that many will not listen, or have something better already, and then they turn around and cry discrimination; and oh how the heart bleeds then.  There is an honest belief in their worldview being the only right one, and so they are essentially incapable of even beginning to understand how people could have other religious views, let alone entirely different conceptions of deity. They struggle enough with Jews, Muslims and Athiests, without even peering into other conceptions of deity outside monotheism.  Theirs is a tunnel vision of the narrowest sort, and rather than realize their blindness, it is celebrated as "walking the path of the righteous"; literally reveling in their ignorence.


Keeping in mind the way their mythologic narative plays out, it should surprise no one who knows about it. The scriptures are self supporting and held to be irrefutible ("God said it. I believe it. That's it.) The Scriptures are replete with notions of the difficulty of "walking the true path", being weary of "false prophets", being aware of those who will seek to discredit "the word", being persecuted for their beliefs, and finally being rewarded for their life of struggle and persecution, in part by watching all those who "persectued" them tortured to death for 1000 years. There is a very good reason why members of the dominant religion of the planet see themselves as persecuted martyrs, they are told to be. Regardless of the reality of Christian hedgemony, somehow this type of Christian still see themselves as a persecuted group. It is because their worldview will not allow them to see the posistion of power they are already in, and that everything and everyone who disagrees with them simply fuels this notion. 


If the facts do not fit with the worldview, then the facts are not "real" facts, but deceptions that only the "true believer" will be able to "see". There is no hope in debate or discourse with such people, because any evidence or argument to the contrary (or alternitive) becomes proof of their world view; a self perpetuating cycle.

Truth in our hearts, Strength in our arms, Fulfillment in our tongues.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2010 - 2:20AM #20
MattieNow
Posts: 10

In my opinion, it is hypocritical to call oneself a follower of Christ, then not to try to behave like Christ.


My initial post was just to point out that the terms "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" have different meanings. There are evangelical Catholics, for instance.


"Fundamentalist" has a specific meaning. It shouldn't be a derogatory term, and it probably shouldn't be used for people of other religions, as in the term "Islamic fundamentalist." That term is a slam at both Muslims and Christian fundamentalists.


I understand that it is being used to mean extremist, and I think it isn't right to tar all fundamentalists with the same brush.


It seems to me it is evangelicals you are unhappy with, since their main focus is proselytizing, rather than fundamentalists.


There are fundamentalists who are not evangelicals, and there are evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. And there are people in both camps who don't support having any religious group take over the government, schools, and so on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook