What will evangelism achieve?

Re: What will evangelism achieve?
Funny that you have posted your point of view , in an attempt to persuade others that you are right.

But your point is that if someone else attempts to persuade others , then that is a bad thing.

Why is it ok for you to persuade others to your POV, but not for others to do so?

real life- I agree. Even though I am not a theist, I think that anyone has the right to attempt to persuade others to their way of thinking...................that is, if it is done fairly.

I think that the problem with many of the evangelists is that they target certain groups of people, the poor, the uneducated, the unsophisticated. Many will use the "scare tactics" approach, which is really playing "dirty pool" when targeted at naive people. Sometimes, they pry out money from these folks who really need it for themselves, and their families.

Bottom line, I think that anyone has the right to attempt to persuade people of anything, but IMO there are many evangelists who are more immoral than the people that they are attempting to "save".

I am unaware that evangelical Christianity is on the rise in the US. My opinion, without researching it, is that the movement has peaked and has begun to ebb. Certainly, this is true in the political arena--they appear to have lost some clout. I am heartened by this.

Regardless, their tactics are SOP as it relates to Christianity. The saved have always believed they are among the select few chosen, and that their message will fall upon mostly deaf ears, so therefore the message or the mode of delivering that message is not at fault, it's simply the unenlightened.

As a side note, I've been observing Christian affairs for several years now and am struck by one thing: How faddish the whole business is. Evangelism is just another manifestation of that. It wasn't so long ago that angels were the latest rage, for instance. Mega-churches another. All this from an institution that prides itself in resting firmly on unchanging and eternal truths, solid as a rock.

I didn't exactly mean trying to persuade others is a bad thing. What I am trying to point out is the way in which evangelist's specifically, try to persuade people.

They insult you, to try and convert you. They make various criticisms about science, darwinian evolution etc, and its all followed with "you are going to hell". They claim their right and everyone else is wrong.

They never asked themselves the question "What if I am wrong?". They might consider the question to themselves, but they will always maintain to other people that they are unquestionably right.

This is no way to reasonably persuade people, even though it does work sometimes.

Gilbey- How can you reasonably persuade someone to believe in something, which by its very nature, is illogical and UNreasonable???? Faith and reason are polar opposites.

The Evangelicals , like every other religious sect, have begun to differentiate themselves from each other lately. Rather than a monolithic culture, theyve taken various missions that include things like environmentalism (even though the original batch ofmillenialists felt that "since these are all end times, why the hell get involved in fixing up a planet thats soon gonna be cintered"). SOme Evangelicals are even seeing fit to back more liberal causes like Obama's campaign.

I think that the furcation of Evangelicals gives the appearance of diminished membership when indeed , its more of a matter that some are merely taking different roads.

However, like the big major religions, the Evangelicals all want the same thing, full control of mind and wallet.

Phoenix, you cannot have reasonless faith.

Faith is based on propositions that people believe to be more likely true than false.

If you could show an example of reasonless faith I would like to see it.

So when liberal politicians target the 'poor' and 'uneducated' with their message, are they 'targeting the naive' and failing to persuade people 'fairly' as you describe it?

When they pry money from this same constituency for campaign donations, are they taking advantage of the very people they are claiming to help?

Is it 'immoral' for them to do so, as you described others in the same terms?

If not, why not?

They insult you? Hmmm, first of all, not all evangelists have the same type of delivery. Second, if you are insulted maybe it's because you don't like what the Word of God says. People often get offended because God's word contradicts them or their lifestyle.

And just what is wrong with telling people they don't have to suffer hell because God provided us a way from that? It should be done in love and not as any scare tactic. But I find many non-believers have the misconception that people believe in God because they are frightened into it or it's "fire insurance".

I am not one that advocates any evangelist that preaches a hate doctrine, preaches to get rich, or one who doesn't line up with the Bible.

My suggestion to you is, if you don't like what they do or have to say, don't listen to them.

Obviously, plenty of people are listening.

weve certainly had our shares of immoral bunco artists who were Evangelists. DO you deny that RL?

Of course not. I could name many that you've never heard of.

What would that prove?

You do understand the difference between use and misuse, don't you?

Does the presence of flim flam politicians cause us to cry out to close down the political process and opt for a dictatorship instead?

No.

C'mon farmerman. I really expected a higher level of discourse from you.

rl saying to phoenix [quote]So when liberal politicians target the 'poor' and 'uneducated' with their message, are they 'targeting the naive' and failing to persuade people 'fairly' as you describe it? [/quote]
RL,then saying to me when I recalled the several bunco artist Evangelicals said[quote]Of course not. I could name many that you've never heard of.

What would that prove?
[/quote]
It would show you not to post your outrage from your captitulation too closely.

As far as what you expect as contributions from others, dont set yourself up as a standard of acceptance, youre not qualified.

Crazy for God
I watched the author present his new book on C-SPAN Book TV Sunday. Fascinating story. ---BBB

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
by Frank Schaeffer

Book DescriptionEditorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Part autobiography, part parental tribute and part examination of how American evangelism got to where it is, versatile author Schaeffer tells a moving story of growing up and growing wise in his latest (after Baby Jack: A Novel). Raised in Switzerland in the utopian community and spiritual school his evangelical parents founded, Schaeffer was restless and aware even at a young age that "my life was being defined by my parent's choices." Still, he took to "the family business" well, following his dad as he became one of the "best-known evangelical leaders in the U.S." on whirlwind speaking tours. While rubbing shoulders with such empire builders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, Schaeffer witnessed the birth of the Christian anti-abortion movement, and became an evangelical writer, speaker and star in his own right. His disillusionment, when it came, hit hard; while he would eventually achieve modest fame as a filmmaker and author (of novels and nonfiction), the initial stages of Schaeffer's post-religious life were anything but glamorous; a particularly moving passage describes Schaeffer shoplifting pork chops rather than return to the evangelical fold. Schaeffer does not mince words, making his narrative honest, inflammatory and at times quite funny; despite its excess length and some confusing chronological leaps, this story of faith, fame and family in modern America is a worthy read.

Jeff Sharlet, New Statesman,10/25/07

"A brilliant book, a portrait of fundamentalism painted in broad strokes with streaks of nuance, the twinned coming-of-age story of Frank and the Christian right. But this story moves in more than one direction: both coming-of-age narratives are pulled against the current by the tragedy of Francis Schaeffer, a man who let his children, biological and ideological, guide him down a path from which he'd spent his whole life struggling to get off."

Christianity Today's Books & Culture

"Memoir obviously demands introspection, and Schaeffer doesn't hold back...Schaeffer describes a life that was by turns happy, difficult, idyllic, and completely nuts...He's a world-class storyteller...He can make us laugh, make us wince, and make us really think about things, all at the same time."

Arella Mae, so you admit that some evangelist types of delivery just cause conflict in the way that they speak, seeing as you said "not all evangelists have the same type of delivery".

I'm insulted, because they do not ask themselves the question:

WHAT IF I'M WRONG?

all evangelist assume their right, and they assume anyone who does not believe in God is wrong. How naive of them.

And you make out that people misunderstand why people believe in God, but I bet you would be afraid to stop worshiping God, because if you did, you would be afraid you would go to hell, what other reason do you have to stop you believing in God, assuming that God does exist.

And i listen to them, and speak against them, because I dont think we need any more religious based people than there is in the world. Religion does not have anything left to offer us.

Evangelists are stuck, always doing the sales pitch and trying to close the deal. Christianities primary weakness has been in product development, the Evangelists are doing nothing to fix the primary problem. So no, I don't expect anything out of them.

RL,then saying to me when I recalled the several bunco artist Evangelicals said
It would show you not to post your outrage from your captitulation too closely.

As far as what you expect as contributions from others, dont set yourself up as a standard of acceptance, youre not qualified.[/quote]

What 'capitulation'?

When have I ever contended that there were not those who misuse religion?

Are you trying to make it appear that you have 'forced' me to admit something that I did not want to address?

Far from it.

I have discussed often that use is not the same as misuse.

Pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better, but it's an empty gesture.

How do you know they don't ask themselves if they are wrong or not? Or are you just assuming you are right?



How many of your strongly held beliefs do you think are wrong? Seems rather silly, doesn't it? How many times in your life have you thought to yourself, "You know, this belief I have is wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway!"?

My guess is that you and "they" do the exact same things - but probably about different subjects/topics.

Fishin is on.

Of course I admit it. It's the simple truth.



Naive? Nah, I don't think so. Might be in some cases. But what so many do not seem to understand is if you believe in God you aren't going to change those beliefs other than what you may learn in the Bible. For me, if it doesn't line up with the Bible, then I won't accept it.



First, nothing will make me stop worshipping God. I love him first and foremost. Afraid I'd go to hell? No way! I'd know I'd go to hell if I stopped believing and turned against God. But so what? Is it anyoe's business why I believe what I believe anyway? I am grateful I don't have to worry about going to hell and grateful for the blessings I receive as a believer.



Oh really? And just what makes you the expert that you think this? So you are one of the tolerant ones then when it comes to people believing or not believing as their right and you let them?