What is Evangelism?

Btw, there's a thread on N Korea, and your post would be better suited there.

https://able2know.org/topic/402764-1

I disagree. Winston Churchill Evangelized Parliment to get them to change their mind and fight. If not now then in the not to distant future, North Korea could destroy more infrastructure and kill more people in one day than Hitler ever could dream of.

The reason Chamberlain and Parliament wanted to basically surrender to Hitler is because they were the families that owned the factories and the infrastructure (And had been trading with Germany to build their war machine.) The members of Parliament new the war would destroy their infrastructure and much of their wealth would be destroyed. If they surrendered to Hitler they knew that they would more than likely remain privileged and keep some control of their wealth (as long as they weren't Jewish or if they didn't rock Hitler's boat).

So Churchill got on a subway and roused the working clas people that would loose the one thing that they had their freedom. With them and the King behind him Parliament had to fall into place.

But even Churchill didn't have the guts to do it till the King asked him to. The interesting thing is the King didn't have enough guts to stand up to Parliament without Churchill and they evangelized each other.

Those men (Churchill and King George the IV) stood up against the Godless Nazi idealism of survival of the fittest, and stood for the freedom of the weaker average working man of England because they believed all men were created in the Image of God with inalienable rights.



Now that's evangelism at work.



Btw, Fascism is a form of government contrary to the God endowed inalienable rights that our constitution guarantees no matter who is President. I am not to worried about Trump taking away any inalienable rights without being checked by the other two branches of government or an election. He can only do so much in three more years. Hopefully most of it will be good. So far (despite his character flaws) I think his policy has been pretty good.

A movie isn't the same as history, and it wasn't just England, it was all of the UK.

Churchill had nothing to do with the Battle of Cable Street. Clement Atlee's vital role is overlooked too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street


Take it to the Korea thread.

Well, then the movie was a great example of evangelism.

Wouldn’t you agree?

I've not seen it.

Cobbler is the one interested in defining evangelism, and he's not replied.

I think you're diverting the thread so I won't comment on this anymore. If you want to talk about NK I'll happily respond on the NK thread I linked.

We should not ever compromise our core beliefs whether we are Christian or not. I believe all views should be presented, and discussed do determine truth. We have legalized abortion, government funded contraceptives through health care, gay marriage, transgender soldiers . . . whether Christians are right or wrong they should be heard, and be allowed to lose. Notice Barry did not talk about maintaining the integrity and original meaning of the constitution as established by the founding fathers. Changing the meaning of the word marriage, life, health, choice, by judicial fiat rather than amending the constitution is much more dangerous. It is going to lead to a flip flopping of the meanings of words as society evolves back and forth in core beliefs over time and elects different types of Supreme Court justices.

I am bringing the thread back to topic because I am interested in your opinion on evangelism. You did a great job of evangelizing your point of view with the Goldwater quote.

That's Cobbler, not me.

I stand corrected but I still wanted to hear your point of view.

I've already given it. I'm not interested in redefining evangelism.

I am not sure who here is "redefining evangelism", I have merely pointed out that the Bible does define evangelism and its meaning seems to contradict the "out in the world" definition.

Evangelism does have narrow "biblical" definition just as the republican party has a narrow platform of hate and discrimination.

I am still waiting for you to use the bible to disprove my assertions here.

And considering the narrow definition of evangelism that I have propositioned here, this thread is open to "any" topic that is roughly in the ballpark of the discussion.

...Everything from education, the social safety-net to the "evangelical" world view on politics and war.

We might also define what fundamentalism is too...

Fundamentalism = narrow view (just like evangelism)

"Teachers"....
https://www.facebook.com/foxsanantonio/videos/10156044514297445/

We should always question our core beliefs, because that is a mark of a true religious, creative, and imaginative mind. Belief is not faith, belief precludes faith.

I agree you should always question, asking is the only way to learn and grow and convert. But, there are some core beliefs in 10 commandments, ethics, etc. . . that one should hold true to.

JOE SCARBOROUGH~ EVANGELICALS HAVE CORRUPTED THEMSELVES BECAUSE POLITICS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN MORALS!

Facebook Poster: Wonder if Franklin Graham thinks Trump is "protecting Christian values" when he's banging porn stars behind his wife's back??

I would rather have a president that lives the way he wants but promotes policy that protects people’s right to believe what they want, than to have a president that lives like I want him to but, won’t protect my rights to believe what I want, or the rights of the weak, vulnerable, or very young.

I bet if they outlawed pornography, adultry, and divorce in Lynchburg Virginia or even the entire state, Trump would be okay with them Governing their state the way they want. He also would more than likely not get married there or solicit porn stars that aren’t his spouse there for sex.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here.

I am not sure which president you are referring to who would like to have taken your right to believe in what happy horseshit you choose to believe in.

No one is saying you can't believe in what you want. But when you use that faith to justify hate for others then it is no longer a reverent faith in a benevolent God but a source of terror and insult to others.

The idea is allowing others the same right while still being civil to them.

Religion is used to justify racism, homophobia and misogyny... this is simply against all rules of social conduct no matter what or whose God says it is okay.

And the idea that by taking away everyone's porn to prevent a sicko man who makes his wife pregnant on month and the next month hires a porn star to fornicate with is preposterous!

It is already ethically wrong to commit adultery! What makes you think that removing porn will somehow magically fix what is already immoral in a person? There will always be some woman a creep like this will exploit for their own sick and deprived pleasure.

Locks only keep honest people out.

Two wrongs don't make a right, you would rather have sicko president so you can use religion to terrorize others with racism, homophobia and misogyny?

Religion without charity is travesty.