 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Bill3000
|
 |
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should they be prevented from saying stuff or presenting stuff to you?
Yeah, you might think it's all lies and filth, but I assure you that many other people would see otherwise. Just because it is a burden on you, is not justification to bar them from spreading their beliefs to others. |
Because evangelicism is probably the worst "evil" (pseudo-moral relativistically, "evil" probably isn't a good word for this) one can actually do. If successful, it changes the way that people view the world regardless of if they want to be changed or not. You have your right of freedom of expression as long as you don't infringe other people's rights. Period, end of story. Sure some people would want to be converted, but some don't - regardless of your own christain believes that say that they must be converted, religions (PRH, not just that; society as a whole, really) need to realize that everyone has the right to have their own opinions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
On-topic: If this chaplain's allegations are correct, that's a travesty. Obviously some evangelism should be allowed among the students, but there better not be some kind of censorship policy going on from up top over what movies to show and so on. There's a distinct power imbalance there that requires far greater care with matters of religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill3000
Because evangelicism is probably the worst "evil" (pseudo-moral relativistically, "evil" probably isn't a good word for this) one can actually do. If successful, it changes the way that people view the world regardless of if they want to be changed or not. You have your right of freedom of expression as long as you don't infringe other people's rights. Period, end of story. Sure some people would want to be converted, but some don't - regardless of your own christain believes that say that they must be converted, religions (PRH, not just that; society as a whole, really) need to realize that everyone has the right to have their own opinions. |
How to say this without breaking the flaming policy.... uh, Bill3K, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I saw you return that you were older & wiser. Perhaps you should read your post over again and explain how it makes even a scintilla of sense. I barely know where to start with it.
I'll simply say this: you cannot change your mind unwillingly about something. You cannot be convinced against your will. It's a contradiction in terms, barring orbital mind control lasers or some other kind of mystic/sci-fi device. The worst that can happen is that the person is unconvinced, but thanks to social pressure or perhaps thinking it would help them advance, the person pretends to be convinced. That would be a problem in the army, but it doesn't jibe even remotely with what you said. No one's natural rights are being violated. The person isn't convinced, and hasn't had their world view changed despite them not wanting it to be.
Anyway, more generally, how can evangelism in general be bad? If I post a question about how to fix my lawnmower, people can offer advice. If I ask a question about how to live my life or what moral values to hold, it becomes immoral for others to offer advice? It's like a ship's captain who allows his subordinates to approach him over irrelevant things, like scrubbing the decks, but refuses anyone to allow them to tell him where to actually steer the ship. Evangelism is no different than political debates on Apolyton where one person tries to convince another person; merely change the subject from politics to religion. Free-willed people can then choose afterwards whether the argument is convincing or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:20
|
|
I believe in religious freedom, but I don't think there's a place for religion in the army. Army is killing machine. Sure, many of it's people belong to some religion, but, essentially, it's a killing machine. Religion in the army should only cover being a.. councelor type of help to people who want rather see a priest than other social person etc, and also for people who want to practice their religion in forms of praying etc like once a week max. If that's not good enough, then I guess that's not a job for someoen who can't live with those rules.
But I keep to my belief which is, that army is essentially and primarily a killing machine, it's members should be ready to kill, preferrably ready to maim. If you want to see Jesus, Allah or Jahve or whoever in that picture, you have to a) be sick in the head b) not effective killing machine c) in the wrong profession.
This is because I don't want any member of my team or people above me to make their decisions based on anythign else than brutal logic of war science. That's it. I don't want anyone starting to have a conscience in the middle of a crisis that could mean bad for us. Most of all, I don't want anyone to be influenced by anyone else trying to pull the brother card. And most of all, I don't want anyone thinking anything else, except killing and making it out alive, period.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
The Air Force Academy is in Colorado Springs, which is also the Headquarters for: Focus on the Family, Compassion International, The Navigators, Youth with a Mission, Young Life and the [b]International Bible Society[\b]. |
one of these is not like the others (or most of the others.. not sure about some of them), one of these is not the same
Jon Miller
(unless you beleive that Bible translation is purely conservative and evangelical)
(one of the translators of NiV was a lesbian (wasn't out at the time))
(hard core evangelicals think that the NiV is the work of the devil)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bill3000
|
|
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
How to say this without breaking the flaming policy.... uh, Bill3K, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I saw you return that you were older & wiser. Perhaps you should read your post over again and explain how it makes even a scintilla of sense. I barely know where to start with it. |
Odds are that it makes sense to myself, but I didn't put it into words right. I suck at that.
quote:
I'll simply say this: you cannot change your mind unwillingly about something. You cannot be convinced against your will. It's a contradiction in terms, barring orbital mind control lasers or some other kind of mystic/sci-fi device. The worst that can happen is that the person is unconvinced, but thanks to social pressure or perhaps thinking it would help them advance, the person pretends to be convinced. |
While it is true that humans have free will, it doesn't mean that their mind or spirituality is strong enough to make an willful decision. If someone wants to look for saving and is seeking for answers, that is different than someone trying to enforce it on them.
And yes, social pressure is also part of the problem. Faking religion isn't good either.
quote:
That would be a problem in the army, but it doesn't jibe even remotely with what you said. No one's natural rights are being violated. The person isn't convinced, and hasn't had their world view changed despite them not wanting it to be. |
It's different when it comes down to harassment.  If someone says no, one shouldn't continue trying.
quote:
Anyway, more generally, how can evangelism in general be bad? If I post a question about how to fix my lawnmower, people can offer advice. If I ask a question about how to live my life or what moral values to hold, it becomes immoral for others to offer advice? It's like a ship's captain who allows his subordinates to approach him over irrelevant things, like scrubbing the decks, but refuses anyone to allow them to tell him where to actually steer the ship. [/quote
I seriously doubt that there are groups of liberals or conservatives going around people's houses to try to convert them to their own points of views. Evangelism isn't about discussing or debating religious views; it's about the evangilist to convince someone that their view of life is the only way to life. Advice is completely different.
[quote]Evangelism is no different than political debates on Apolyton where one person tries to convince another person; merely change the subject from politics to religion. Free-willed people can then choose afterwards whether the argument is convincing or not. |
mmm... I see the analogy, but it's not perfect. Politics has to do with your rationale, and less of a world view. Religion (organized or not, faith-based or even just the athetisic, yet pseudo-religious feel of believing in nature) and our moral systems are something that guide our entire life. Politics can be a part of it, but it's never the entire spectrum.
Politics on the internet is about "I'm right and you're wrong!" and trolling, not actually convincing people, bcause that's impossible over the 'net. I have never seen anyone on the internet actually "convinced"; it's all attention whoring in the end. Politics is a lot like sports in this aspect; rooting for your team. This isn't something completely analogous to religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
|
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by el freako
The best advertisement for christianity is to live a christ-like life.
However this is a bloody hard thing to do so most christians, being lazy people like the rest of us, prefer to take the easier route of 'do what I say not what I do', and then seem to be surprised that they come across as hypocritical bigots. |
This is the best way to do it, and as you point out, it's something only a few rare people manage. I think I've met perhaps one or two of them in my life so far, and I suspect I'd be quite willing to at least listen to anything they'd have to offer on the subject.
Though it's certainly a bit romanticized, the movie The Inn of the Sixth Happiness was a pretty good portrayal of missionarism at its absolute best. The main character didn't get into harangueing the masses or pretending to be able to make decisions for them, but merely led by example while spreading Bible stories so people would at least know them. Since most people are familiar with the rough outline of the Christian story in the Air Force, that leaves the "being a strong example" part.
Bill3K: I don't want to get into an epic debate on this. I'll repeat again that the Air Force may be out of line in how they've done this. I was more taking a stance against the idea that all evangelism is somehow bad regardless of circumstance, and your initial strange defense of the idea.
If someone wants to look for saving and is seeking for answers, that is different than someone trying to enforce it on them.
Enforce? As in conversion by the sword? I'm not defending that; it's a miserable idea that misses the point completely. However, you are saying that all evangelism is evil somehow. Logically, if you say all crows are black, I get to offer any non-black crows as evidence against you. You can't point out one particularly black crow and show this as evidence.
The point is, you can't pick evangelism in its worst forms to prove your point (you COULD do that if I claimed "All Evangelism is good," and use that as a counterexample).
So points like this are basically irrelevant. You have to show how a kind-hearted person who politely offers their point of view on religion and lives the ideals they espouse is actually doing something bad.
I seriously doubt that there are groups of liberals or conservatives going around people's houses to try to convert them to their own points of views.
You've never watched TV during an election cycle, I take it?
Evangelism isn't about discussing or debating religious views; it's about the evangilist to convince someone that their view of life is the only way to life. Advice is completely different.
Uh. This is false and irrelevant at the same time. Evangelism means nothing more than trying to spread a particular religious view (traditionally used with Christianity). Perhaps the person claims it is the only way to life; more typically, the person is offering (what they claim to be) a better way of life. As for your distinction between convincing someone about their way of life nad discussion/debate... how do you think that person does the convincing? I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by the idea that the evangelist doesn't discuss or debate things? Having met door-to-door evangelists myself, I can guarentee you that they'd absolutely love the chance to discuss things, as they see that as a sign of someone willing to talk (most people slam the door). Or do you mean it's only a one-way conversation? Evangelists who try that aren't going to get very far, I think. Which is their right, perhaps, but I'm still not seeing any difference between evangelism and advice aside from the topic.
mmm... I see the analogy, but it's not perfect. Politics has to do with your rationale, and less of a world view. Religion (organized or not, faith-based or even just the athetisic, yet pseudo-religious feel of believing in nature) and our moral systems are something that guide our entire life. Politics can be a part of it, but it's never the entire spectrum.
Fine. My analogy's wrong. Now explain why debating over something that encompasses the entire spectrum is somehow worse or different than something that only debates part of the spectrum.
We're back to the ship's captain. Why are we only allowed to dicuss comparatively minor things, but major things are disallowed? Philosophy is the most important guiding principle we live by, and there are ooooodles of books out there detailing religious philosophies, secular philosophies, theory of philosophy, and so on. Are all these book somehow immoral because they're too broad? I mean, I really don't get it.
Politics on the internet is about "I'm right and you're wrong!" and trolling, not actually convincing people, bcause that's impossible over the 'net. I have never seen anyone on the internet actually "convinced"; it's all attention whoring in the end.
This is false and insulting. Consider yourself having met someone whose opinion has changed thanks to the Internet. Even for those who haven't changed their opinions, to call the reason they post attention whoring is ridiculous. Most people post because it's fun and/or intellectually stimulating, and they have time to burn. Simple as that.
Then again, if you refuse to admit the possibility that your opinion might change (since you, too, are posting on the Internet! And I hope it's not for attention whoring!), any debate truly is pointless.
I still don't understand your point. Let me try and summarize what I think you're saying: Evangelism is bad because it's too broad & an important issue. Furthermore, for those who aren't convinced, their rights were somehow violated by having to be subject to the evangelism. My response is to say that evangelism is no different than any of the other countless things in human interaction; that the "too big" argument is bizarre and nonsensical; and that while obviously harrassment is no good, the vast majority of evangelism going on, especially the sucessful variety, is far more under the radar & not inflicted on helpless people who are tied up and forced to listen to tracts.
Last edited by SnowFire on 15-05-2005 at 07:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
any idea that you beleive is right you have a duty to try and convince others of it
otherwise, did you really believe in it?
see my defense of fanaticism thread (where only one person discussed with me, and he just didn't like my definition, not neccesarily disagreed wtih me (Curt Sibling I think))
Jon miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2005 21:52
|