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

[AngelinaTaylor]

As for Creation: note that both Creation and evolution have the same fossils, same data, same overall evidence.

Please, PLEASE tell me you're kidding. You think the Bible's actually a reliable source for "facts" and "proof"? HAHAHA, okay. Wow.

Wow. Just tell me you're kidding. Otherwise, I might come back and explain.