wade-w

Unfortunately, it is rather common there.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Muffinstuffer
True. But then again, NO one has the full knowledge of the universe.

True. But if one does not have full knowledge of the universe - or of the minds of other people - one is not justified in deciding that they would be happier belonging to one's religion.

Again, this doesn't refer to you, but to christians who make that assumption.

Well, the question begs asking, what constitutes a 'shotgun approach'? If you mean just witnessing to every single person I can possibly find, I don't do that.

You might do so, but not all christians do. I'm thinking of the door-to-door people here.

True, but the difference between a stalker and THIS particular Christian (I can't speak for them all of course) is that I try once, and if someone gets offended, I apologize, and then quit. Most stalkers do not.

Many proselytizing christians do not, either.

And thanks for the compliment.

You're welcome. Now give me one.

You're fairly correct that sometimes they are not free to say they're not interested.

I felt that way when my mom's friend started talking about her son and crying. "How can I tell this person that the constant references to god are boring the hell out of me?" I thought. This kind of Stealth-fighter witnessing - to continue the military metaphors - does not win friends or influence people.

I do hope you understand that when I talk to someone about my faith, a) if I am the initiator, I usually do so ONLY after getting to know that person AND finding out if they are receptive to it.

MS, I think you got it right : we are discussing two different types of witnessing here.

1. your type, which seems respectful of the other person's right not to hear it and right to reject it once it is heard.

2. the type I have most frequently encountered, which is the opposite.

I don't have much of a gripe with type 1. I don't want to hear it, but it doesn't cause half as much harm and annoyance as the second type. Maybe that's not saying much, though.

By that time, they know that a) I'm not out to hurt or alienate them, and b) even if I did, it would not be intentional. On top of that, sometimes you can not help offending people.

This is true. Sometimes, people are so scarred by fundamentalist christianity that they don't want to hear anything about it at all. Not that this justifies being nasty to a theist who is polite enough to say, "I'm sorry that this offends you. I didn't realize it would do so, and I won't bring up the subject again."

This is distinct, though, from taking apart the theist's arguments. IMO, personal niceness and the quality of one's arguments are completely distinct, and it's possible to demolish the argument - even sarcastically - without being rude towards the person who promoted it.

If all Christians sat around trying to witness BUT refrained from doing so because they were worried about offending people,

then we'd all be in heaven.

Obviously I have to point out the fact that by virtue of what I believe, I'd be one of those 'fundies.'

Not all fundies are created equal. If you are indeed a biblical literalist, I hope you stick around, because I like some balance here between the 'good' fundies and the 'bad' fundies.

As far as tolerating goes, as I'm SURE you've heard before, and as the saying goes, "Christian's aren't perfect....just forgiven."

I'm not really fond of this phrase because firstly, I've seen some theists using it as an excuse for why they've just insulted someone (not someone's arguments, but another person). Secondly, didn't Jesus say, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect?"

Anyway, I doubt that you're going to use the phrase as a safety net for your words - which so far have been decent and respectful. As someone (was it Ingersoll?) once said, "We do not wish to be forgiven, but we do wish Christians would act in such a way that we would not have to forgive them."

DMB

I am interested in your position on separation of church and state. Can I take it that you feel that part of your religious belief mandates a requirement for "In God We Trust" on your country's money?

Now I am only a naive atheist, but I remember the context of Jesus's famous "Render unto Caesar..." saying. Someone asked him whether it was OK to pay taxes to the Romans and he held up a coin and asked whose head was on it. The answer was "Caesar's". I also seem to remember a saying about how no man can serve two masters: God and Mammon. (This one has, of course, created huge problems for all those camels trying to squeeze through the eye of the needle and is frequently simply ignored.)

In my book, money is Mammon. Isn't it a bit confusing to stamp it with religious sentiments?

What is the purpose of this statement on the money? Is it to remind xians that they trust in god? Do they forget so often? Is it there simply to intimidate all non-xians who use the Government-provided notes: to remind them that they are second-class citizens? (If so, what a xian sentiment! Would Jesus have approved?)

Rational BAC

Surprisingly long thread in a short period of time.

Started to read the whole thing but my eyes got tired.

Going to bring up a couple points and hope am not duplicating something already said.

I have noticed that the word Christian seems to be used to refer only to fundamentalist Christians by many non-theists.

I hope everyone realizes how bogus that is. The vast majority of Christians in the world are not fundamentalist, do not evangelize, are live and let live types as far as metaphysics unless done on an intellectual plane with both sides agreeing to the discussion.

I am a born again Christian, but do not even consider evangelizing in todays world as a proper thing to do. 2000 years ago, when most ideas were spread by word of mouth ---"witnessing" was a good idea. I can understand all the references to doing that in the Bible.

But with our modern day, evangelism is silly, and a waste of time. We are bombarded with more info than we can assimilate anyway. No one can say today that they have not been able to find out the Christian message. In fact, if you so choose, you can be bombarded with the Christian messages from a myriad of sources. ---------If you so choose. -----And that is what is really important today. ------------that YOU so choose (Not someone choosing that for you)

I say leave atheists and agnostics alone, unless they bring up the subject and ask you for advice on a belief system. And everyone will be happier.

Starboy

It is only bogus to those Christians that hold themselves apart from other Christians. What Christians have to realize is their religion has a stink on it that won't come off. If they don’t like it then they better hold those undesirable Christians to the standards of behavior they think they represent and start throwing them in jail for sexual crimes, prosecuting them for fraud, labeling them the liars they are and pointing out how unpatriotic they are when they undermine the constitution.

Starboy


<inflammatory remarks deleted - liv>

Rational BAC

Well---that was pretty strong Starboy and definitely on the emotional side.

Am I really my brother's keeper?

I am only responsible for myself. As are you.

Starboy

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. No man is an island. If Christians do not hold precious their values then who will?

Starboy

Rational BAC

---------------------------------------------------------------

Still haven't figured how to work this "view" thing properly. Didn't really want to do the whole thing. Oh well.

Personally I think it is stupid to have "In God We Trust" on our folding money-----------Some people think it was forever there--It was not. It was just a McCarthyist period thing that should have gotten trashed years ago as irrelevent. (Was intermittently put on coins before that time though)

Same thing with "under God" in the Pledge and from the exact same period and for the same reasons. ---a temporary "cold war" thing to distinguish US from those nasty Godless commies. Long out of date by now--but it has developed a life of its own. Surprising how many of the younger people of today actually believe that "under God" was always in the Pledge.

I never say "under God" when saying the Pledge because I didn't learn it that way (and it seriously messes up the rhythm)

(Then again I also stopped saying "indivisible" when saying the Pledge------------because I realized I was saying an oath I did not believe in.---------Still believe secession is quite legal- under the Constitution --so what is this "indivisible" crap?)

(Then again, again---I do not place my hand over my heart when saying the Pledge-------seems a little silly and was a modification to the original Nazi salute used before WW2 made that politically incorrect.

Seemed to have gotten off subject though. Sorry about that.

JCS

It depends on what you mean by "help" and exactly what that help entails. In my experience this usually refers to being told that I need forgiveness for a "sin" invented by and imposed by the same unsubstantiated deity that wants to forgive me for his unwanted imposition. Not only does this construct sound absurd, I find it highly insulting and degrading that anyone would think that believing this will somehow "help" or make my life better.

Example provided courtesy of Muffinstuffer:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Saved? Saved from what, why, and how did you get into this position in the first place & why does one need forgiveness from it? If the intrusion into my time isn't insufferable enough, the assault on my sensibilities is more than I care to offer courtesy to, whether it be from single or repeat offenders.


Well I don't force my atheism on anyone, but at times I feel I should, just so they could know the happiness that I now know.

Well that was mighty nice of him considering this thing christians need to be forgiven from was instituted by the same source you're seeking your forgiveness from. They cut you, made you bleed, now they want you to buy their bandaids while thanking them for the service they provide. I also would like to go on record stating that we need more in-depth thinking and less pooh-pawing of those that take the time to face that challenge.

I see the problem as christians naively believing that we either haven't heard the message before or thinking that repetition will do the trick.

Muffinstuffer

As far as I am aware of I do not believe I have, and the reason for it is posted after your next paragraph....

Here's the problem with your statement (ASIDE from the fact that loads of Christians do exactly this ).....I agree with the first two, BUT not with the third, because while it can be said that you can do all sorts of things wrong and be a Christian (I screw up all the time), if you DO NOT claim Jesus Christ as your savior, you can't be a Christian...that's a prerequisite. As far as I know, Hitler never did this, and Koresh claimed to BE Christ. So I did not, I believe. If I did imply that I assure you it was unintentional, and I apologize.

No problem. I'm only now replying to this because my wife graduated from college last night and then we went to a party.