Evangelism Options

[yummy_delight]

A good friend of mine and I recently got into a heated debate about evangelism. We're both Christians, but we have very different ideas about evangelism. When my friend started getting really involved in church a few years ago, he also became a rampant evangelist. He believes that by bringing more people into the church he is not only saving them from eternal damnation, but also doing his duty as a Christian. He has often quoted Charles Spurgeon, saying "Every Christian is either a missionary or an imposter," essentially stating that you can't truly be Christian without evangelizing non believers.

I, however, don't like the idea of evangelism at all. Although I'm a devout Catholic, I dislike the idea of evangelism because I don't believe that anybody, myself included, has the right to force his or her beliefs on someone else. I think that everybody has a right to be whatever the religion they choose. Perhaps it's because I have a different idea about God than other people. I don't think that God sends honestly good people to Hell just because they don't believe in him. There are such things as Christian people who are hypocritical, paying lip service to God at church on Sundays, and still go about causing harm to other people. In my opinion, these people are less deserving of heaven than the good-hearted people whose only "fault" is that they don't believe in God. I think that my duty as a Christian is to be a good person and have a positive impact on the world, which doesn't necessarily mean that I HAVE to be an evangelist.

I'd just like to know what everyone else's opinion is on this, not merely from a Christian standpoint, but from another religion's or atheist's perspective as well. Do you approve of evangelism? Are you an evangelist? Do you think that evangelism is a necessary requirement for all good Christians?

[sdingfelder]

I can only assume that since you mention "the kids", that you're not one. Interesting that the most foul language has come from an adult instead of a kid. For example, insomniac & happykmd (I'm not sure if they're "kids" or not, though) showed much more maturity in their response. You should be proud of yourself.

You're right. They are impressionable -- as everyone can be. Good thing you leave such a good impression. Good job giving "kids" / "young adults" the benefit of the doubt that they can think for themselves.

Certainly having role models like you around to make sure their minds aren't tainted with your own flavor of beliefs is clearly the right thing -- since you obviously have no slant towards a particular side. I can see your desire to not lean one way too far.

Again, why not let them make educated decisions by hearing both sides without denigrating what you don't believe ?

As for Creation: note that both Creation and evolution have the same fossils, same data, same overall evidence. Evolutionists choose to look at the evidence from their slant -- not even agreeing within their own ranks. Creationists look at the evidence from the view that it happened exactly the way it's written in the Bible.

If you were willing to consider looking at the same evidence without your preconceived notions against God, you might actually see something worthwhile. I used to be a fully indoctrinated evolutionist because I never questioned what I was taught in public school. Why not look at truly scientific & measurable data points to support your beliefs ?

Remember that Darwin himself said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Of course, there's more that Darwin had to say in this quote, but he prefaced it with "Reason tells me, that if..." and he goes on. That "if" has never been changed to a "because" or a "since." "If" is not science -- it's science fiction.

Here are some interesting quotes:
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000

"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." G. K. Chesterton

[NoSex]

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
I can only assume that since you mention "the kids", that you're not one.[/quote]

I'm talking about very young children. Younger than ten years old or so.
It was just a comment on the trends within Evangelism in getting them when they're young. That's all.

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Interesting that the most foul language has come from an adult instead of a kid. For example, insomniac & happykmd (I'm not sure if they're "kids" or not, though) showed much more maturity in their response. You should be proud of yourself.[quote]

Argumentum ad hominem?
Are you serious? I think you're confused as to what exactly maturity is. Last time I checked, the value, quality, and reality of my premises and propositions have absolutely nothing to do with my character or how many "foul" words I use in getting them across. Talk about maturity? Let's focus on the arguments, shall we?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
You're right. They are impressionable -- as everyone can be. Good thing you leave such a good impression. Good job giving "kids" / "young adults" the benefit of the doubt that they can think for themselves.[quote]

You can convince a six year old of just about anything. As an adult, you should recognize that and take a bit of responsibility and tact in dealing with something as important and careful as spirituality. Ever heard of Santa Clause?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Certainly having role models like you around to make sure their minds aren't tainted with your own flavor of beliefs is clearly the right thing -- since you obviously have no slant towards a particular side. I can see your desire to not lean one way too far. [quote]

Way to try to neutralize the possibility of a real debate by trying to target me as inherently close minded. Wow, you're no good at this. Let's focus on the arguments at hand, shall we?

By the way, what exactly is objective about taking a six year old to a church?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
As for Creation: note that both Creation and evolution have the same fossils, same data, same overall evidence. Evolutionists choose to look at the evidence from their slant -- not even agreeing within their own ranks. Creationists look at the evidence from the view that it happened exactly the way it's written in the Bible.

If you were willing to consider looking at the same evidence without your preconceived notions against God, you might actually see something worthwhile. I used to be a fully indoctrinated evolutionist because I never questioned what I was taught in public school. Why not look at truly scientific & measurable data points to support your beliefs ?
[/quote]

The difference is creationists have held onto the same creation story since as long as their theology has proposed it. Science moves from observation into theory. Creation moves from "theory" to observation. That's called a methodological problem.

Further, creation isn't scientific. There is nothing about it that is reasonable or logical. It is a preconcieved conclusion supported only by selective analysis, misconception, deception, flat out lies, and awful displays of what someone thinks is a "logical demonstration." f**k, the cosmological argument denies itself. It's a joke.

You seem to just be making a ton of assumptions on my character, and you are largely ignoring and avoiding any kind of real debate. Lets see your affirmative case for creation, I'm dieing for it.

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Remember that Darwin himself said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Of course, there's more that Darwin had to say in this quote, but he prefaced it with "Reason tells me, that if..." and he goes on. That "if" has never been changed to a "because" or a "since." "If" is not science -- it's science fiction.
[/quote]

Why do creationists love to repeat this quote so much? Yeah, of course he has more to say, he goes on for nearly an entire chapter describing exactly how he believes the eye could have evolved, and... it isn't that far from how scientists understand early eye developement today. The evolution of the eye isn't near as complex as creationists like to make it, we have perfect living and dead examples of transitional eyes. "If" is science. Ever heard of a hypothesis, they tend to begin with "If." Augh.

Further, what would this prove? Even if Darwin didn't believe so strongly (which he certainly did) in his theory, how would that at all detract from the reality of evolution? What's your point?

Fossil record is exactly as we imagined it. Fossils aren't exactly the most common thing in the world. It's not like every creature ever was fossilized. Get over yourself, f**k.