Penn Jillette: Religious folk SHOULD proseletyze?!?!

[FriarTed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

It really strikes me how deeply touched Penn seems to be here.

And what of his point? IF a religious person believes that someone's afterlife happiness is at risk, either by eternal Hell or temporal punishment or not being resurrected or bad reincarnations, is there not an obligation to share the warning & the solution?

Now, I don't at all defend the way a lot of my co-religionists do that, but is the very act of doing it an undesirable offense?

And if it should be done, how can it be done better?

[Mangetout]

Interesting to hear him say that (and say that he's always said that) - I'm pretty sure I've heard him say almost the opposite one some show or other.

[cmosdes]

Ever try to explain to someone who <insert bad habit here> why they shouldn't <insert bad habit here>? Chances are people are already aware of many of the professed consequences of their actions. You telling them isn't going to make one iota of difference and will likely only annoy them and make you look like a busybody.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing and all that.

[Cat Fight]

I can't watch the video, but what about the old chestnut about the missionary and the native? To paraphrase whoever I'm ripping off, the missionary tells the native guy all about God and heaven and the things he has to do to get there as well as the things he has to do to avoid hell. The native guy asks the missionary what would have happened if he'd never come to his village to teach him about his religion. Would everyone have automatically have been sent to hell? The missionary replies, oh no, of course not, a loving God would never punish ignorance.
Right. So why did you come?

[Jophiel]

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19-20

Personally, I've always been somewhat suprised by people who say that they are Christians but that they wouldn't try to convert someone. Jesus is pretty explicit about what he wants his followers to do.

Obviously, I think there's a right way and a poorly planned way to go about it and I also feel that Jesus teaches that there's a point where you should stop because you've done your part and you'll only encourage conflict by pushing it. But the act of proseletyzing is an integral part of Christianity. Nice that Mr. Jillette recognizes that and doesn't take immediate offense to it.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

And what of his point? IF a religious person believes that someone's afterlife happiness is at risk, either by eternal Hell or temporal punishment or not being resurrected or bad reincarnations, is there not an obligation to share the warning & the solution?

Yes, i'd say so.

And if it should be done, how can it be done better?

By doing it effectively, I suppose. At times that might mean not proselytizing. I've certainly been annoyed at it at times, but I do try and remember that it can very well be goodly motivated. Certainly it's possible it can come from a bad place, but quite often it's genuinely motivated by a desire to help.

So yeah, if anyone particularly wants to proselytize to me, and out of a good interest, I can't promise i'll be particularly helpful to the process, but I'd say thanks for the thought behind it.

[Blalron]

I can't imagine how Fundamentalist Christians manage to bear the psychological burden of believing that most humans are going to suffer eternally in hell. Just going shopping at a supermarket and looking at all those doomed souls would be a serious downer for anyone who has any empathy at all.

[Captain Amazing]

From Terry Pratchett's "Carpe Jugulum", from Granny Weatherwax, who does not believe, to Reverend Oats, a minister of the new, kindler gentler version of the old religion Omnianism:

Now if I'd seen him [Om], really there, really alive, it'd be in me like a fever. If I thought there was some god who really did give two hoots about people, who watched 'em like a father and cared for 'em like a mother...well, you wouldn't catch me sayin' things like 'there are two sides to every question' and 'we must respect other people's beliefs'. You wouldn't find me just being really nice in the hope that it'd all turn out right in the end, not if that flame was burning in me like a living sword. And I did say burnin', Mister Oates, 'cos that's what it'd be. You say that you don't burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that's what true faith would mean, y'see? Sacrificing your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin' the truth of it, workin' for it, breathin' for it. That's religion. Anything else is just... is just bein' nice. And a way of keeping in touch with the neighbors."

She relaxed slightly and went on in a quieter voice: "Anyway, that's what I'd be, if I really believed. And I don't think that's fashionable right now, cos it seems if you sees evil now you have to wring your hands and say 'oh deary me, we must debate this'. That my two penn'orth, Mister Oates. You be happy to let things lie. Don't chase faith, 'cos you'll never catch it." She added, almost as an afterthought, "But, perhaps, you can live faithfully."

[glee]

Religious folk should only preach to each other.

Let the Jews and the Christians sort out whether Jesus is the Son of God before they inflict themselves on the rest of us.

[woodstockbirdybird]

So, if you're supposed to go bother people because you're worried their "happiness is at risk", do you also target smokers and go to their homes and tell them about the health risks and admonish them to stop before it's too late? If not, why not? Because it would be fucking annoying, that's why. Unless they're infants, they're already aware of your data, and would be more likely to get verbally abusive than invite you in for a cup of tea.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by woodstockbirdybird

So, if you're supposed to go bother people because you're worried their "happiness is at risk", do you also target smokers and go to their homes and tell them about the health risks and admonish them to stop before it's too late? If not, why not? Because it would be fucking annoying, that's why. ...

Yes it would be annoying, and unwelcome.
I tend to leave people alone and I mind my own business, and I expect the ame from others. There are too many people who "know what's best for you" and they really don't. Besides, which religion is the right one? One man's saint is another man's heretic.

[Sage Rat]

I haven't watched the video (though I've probably seen it before), but I would be fairly certain that Penn is pointing out that people don't follow nor really believe their religion if you look at what they would logically be doing based on the teachings of the religion.

If people really believe that everyone who isn't Christian is going to hell and that Jesus would want them to forsake money and worldly pleasures beyond those needed for basic survival and spend all that free time dedicated to the task of saving the rest of humanity--which is pretty much what Jesus would hold up as the ideal--then that's what they should be doing if they actually believe in God and Jesus and the Bible. Frankly, it's most likely that most Christians are at least 90% atheist and just don't admit it, if you take ten seconds to look at their daily lives.

Heck, if you're Christian, you should be out stoning homos to death, not sitting about fearing the declining interest rates.

[Grumman]

From their point of view, I can see why they'd do that.

From my point of view, I have as little respect for the practice as if they were Flat Earthers trying to convince people not to sail to their dooms.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

I haven't watched the video (though I've probably seen it before), but I would be fairly certain that Penn is pointing out that people don't follow nor really believe their religion if you look at what they would logically be doing based on the teachings of the religion.

If people really believe that everyone who isn't Christian is going to hell and that Jesus would want them to forsake money and worldly pleasures beyond those needed for basic survival and spend all that free time dedicated to the task of saving the rest of humanity--which is pretty much what Jesus would hold up as the ideal--then that's what they should be doing if they actually believe in God and Jesus and the Bible. Frankly, it's most likely that most Christians are at least 90% atheist and just don't admit it, if you take ten seconds to look at their daily lives.

Heck, if you're Christian, you should be out stoning homos to death, not sitting about fearing the declining interest rates.

Maybe you should watch the video, because that is not the point Penn is making. The point is that he encountered what he recognized to be a genuinely decent religious man doing what he felt he should do, and that Penn was obviously moved by that gesture.

And I think the incident with the Adulteress indicated Christ doesn't want His people executing non-violent sexual sinners (tho I still think it's open season on violent criminals).

Now, I do not hold that all unbelievers go to Hell. I do however hold that we all go to a fair & kind dealing, and that even the best of us have areas of our lives that need a good scrubbin', and that scrubbin' might just be intensely painful. Christ Himself compared that time to burnings, beatings & amputations. And while I am no longer oppressed & obsessed with the obligation to warn people of a horrible eternity, Penn's words actually do convict me that I should be doing more to warn people of at least a profound purging which can only be mitigated through trusting & submitting to God/Jesus- and that to the extent I also am not in line with Him, that lesson will be applied to my own hide.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Maybe you should watch the video, because that is not the point Penn is making. The point is that he encountered what he recognized to be a genuinely decent religious man doing what he felt he should do, and that Penn was obviously moved by that gesture.

Ahah, I haven't seen the video (I'm not at work now.)

And yes, I was wrong.

But I would say that Penn is neither advocating proselytization, nor that he is saying anything whatsoever about people being doomed to hell and what that should mean to people.

He met a nice guy who cared about somebody else and made a polite, non-confrontational, and moreover not declaring rightness on his side, attempt to aid someone. Neither Penn nor I nor anyone of a different religion has any reason to fault someone for that, and that's a good point to make.

But saying, "this is acceptable behavior", isn't saying that you should proselytize and try to save people from hell. It's just saying that if you were kind enough to do so in a way that's caring and non-confrontational and not claiming that you're in the right or above other beliefs, then even if someone doesn't agree with you, they'll still at least accept that you're doing your best to care about other people.

Feel free to care for people. If that means proselytizing, go ahead, but don't be an ass.

The not being an ass part is the thing that gets proselytizers in trouble 99.9% of the time. But if they want to do it using acceptable behavior, then that would be a nice thing, most people would agree.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Feel free to care for people. If that means proselytizing, go ahead, but don't be an ass.

The not being an ass part is the thing that gets proselytizers in trouble 99.9% of the time. But if they want to do it using acceptable behavior, then that would be a nice thing, most people would agree.

Most people would agree, yes- but I remember in college, certain students who would complain vociferously when a colleague would happen to mention being religious, that they took the mere mention as being aggressive & disrespectful proselytizing, while most everyone else was "What's up with that?"

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Most people would agree, yes- but I remember in college, certain students who would complain vociferously when a colleague would happen to mention being religious, that they took the mere mention as being aggressive & disrespectful proselytizing, while most everyone else was "What's up with that?"

*shrugs* Commenting that atheists shouldn't be asses still isn't saying that religious people should proselytize. Show that you care, don't be an ass, and get on your way and it's all good. Rational people will understand that your misguided attempt is still just showing that you care, which is a good thing. Irrational people (e.g. irrational atheists) should of course get rational.

And I would note that since Penn is probably giving his video log for the sake of his atheist, skeptic fans, being a rational atheist is much more his point than that proselytizers shouldn't be asses.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by glee

Religious folk should only preach to each other.

Let the Jews and the Christians sort out whether Jesus is the Son of God before they inflict themselves on the rest of us.

You're working under the misconception that Jews care what Christians believe. We don't. Let them think that a giant rutabaga pie was the Son of God, for all we care, so long as they leave us alone.

[Wallenstein]

"You should evangelise always. Occaisionally you may need to use words".

If you have to tell people you're a member of a particular faith, you're probably doing it wrong.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by woodstockbirdybird

So, if you're supposed to go bother people because you're worried their "happiness is at risk", do you also target smokers and go to their homes and tell them about the health risks and admonish them to stop before it's too late? If not, why not?

Eternal happiness or punishment is infinitely more important than anything that could possibly happen in life. Smoker gets cancer - it sucks, but it's not even a drop in the ocean of the potential of heaven and hell.

I've often had this thought myself. My dad is a very religious guy - he's polite about it and not pushy, but he obviously would push me into becoming religious if I seemed willing. So I wonder - if he sincerely believes I'll be punished eternally - a suffering far greater than the entire combined suffering of all of humanity since the beginning of time - why isn't he calling me several times every day to try to convert me? What could possibly have more importance than helping me, and anyone else he can, avoid hell? Nothing.

So on one hand, I get annoyed to be prosetylzed, and yet, the lack of it not becoming the singular goal of every true believer shows a great indifference to unconceivable suffering.

[Critical1]

Originally Posted by Alessan

You're working under the misconception that Jews care what Christians believe. We don't. Let them think that a giant rutabaga pie was the Son of God, for all we care, so long as they leave us alone.

and anyone trying to convert unbelievers is under the misconception that we care what they believe...we dont.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

I've often had this thought myself. My dad is a very religious guy - he's polite about it and not pushy, but he obviously would push me into becoming religious if I seemed willing. So I wonder - if he sincerely believes I'll be punished eternally - a suffering far greater than the entire combined suffering of all of humanity since the beginning of time - why isn't he calling me several times every day to try to convert me? What could possibly have more importance than helping me, and anyone else he can, avoid hell? Nothing.

hes not calling you several times a day to try and convert you because he knows that would do nothing but piss you off and drive you even further away from any hope of converting, thats my guess anyway. sounds like your dad is living his life as an example instead of trying to explain things. seems like my kinda Christian (or whatever your dad is)

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Critical1

and anyone trying to convert unbelievers is under the misconception that we care what they believe...we dont.

Judaism is not a proselytizing religion.
In fact, if you wan to convert to Judaism, the rabbi is obligated to refuse you three times before he says yes.

[Vaderesque]

I don't WANT religionists to evangelise, or think that they SHOULD, but if they don't do it, they are massive hypocrites.

[Kalhoun]

I'm annoyed by the implication that I don't already know what they think will or won't happen to me if I don't accept Religion X into my life.

I also agree with the notion that if there is a god, it doesn't matter whether I take the word of some schmoe on the street or not. The word of god would be the only one that counts and if he needs me, he knows where I am.

[Paul in Qatar]

Originally Posted by Vaderesque

I don't WANT religionists to evangelise, or think that they SHOULD, but if they don't do it, they are massive hypocrites.

Or perhaps modest and hopeful that people will find their own way. Muslims (as a group) are always unwilling to try to teach their religion.

[Vaderesque]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

Or perhaps modest and hopeful that people will find their own way. Muslims (as a group) are always unwilling to try to teach their religion.

That cuts no ice with me. If I noticed someone's car was leaking break fluid I wouldn't be modest and hopeful that they would find their own way to noticing.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Vaderesque

That cuts no ice with me. If I noticed someone's car was leaking break fluid I wouldn't be modest and hopeful that they would find their own way to noticing.

Tell me again how leaking brake fluid and the existence of religious ideas are related here?

[cmosdes]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Tell me again how leaking brake fluid and the existence of religious ideas are related here?

In exactly the same way that a truck visible to only believers is bearing down on you and ready to crush you.

[Sitnam]

There are many religions where proselytizing makes no sense. Judaism for instance is the worship of the god of the Jews, if you're not Jewish it makes no sense to convert you. As far as I know the same goes for Hinduism.

Confuscionism is more of a philospohy as well as Buddism, again, if someone doesn't agree a believer would just shrug their shoulders and walk away. Now I certainly won't deny that violent acts are carried out waving the flags of these belief systems, but there is nothing inherent in their beliefs that compels their flock to spread their faith.

Christianity and Islam are standing in the corner looking pretty guilty right about now.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by cmosdes

In exactly the same way that a truck visible to only believers is bearing down on you and ready to crush you.

The point I'm making is that it is highly probable that a person doesn't know his brake fluid is leaking out, and would probably not be driving if he knew. It would be unsafe. It would be your duty to tell me there's a leak.

On the other hand, who, in this country, do (collective) you think missed the memo about some people's belief in the god concept? Don't you think we ALL know that there are religions out there? You don't think MOST of us were raised in an area where there are churches and religious discussion, and maybe even societal pressures associated with joining up? You don't think we already know that a lot of people think we can be "saved"? You don't think there's an outside possibility that I've heard all about what you believe in and have made an informed choice to ignore it? Or better yet, that I could find a church somewhere if I was interested in hearing more?

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

And if it should be done, how can it be done better?

When I think about the process that lead me from atheism to Christianity, it did not involve anything that would commonly be identified as proselytizing. Rather, it involved me observing Christians doing good things. That's all there is to it. Or, as somebody once said:

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

[ivan astikov]

People can do 'good things' under the aegis of any group. The religious aspect seems entirely unneccesary.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Eternal happiness or punishment is infinitely more important than anything that could possibly happen in life.

Torquemada? Is that you?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

The point I'm making is that it is highly probable that a person doesn't know his brake fluid is leaking out, and would probably not be driving if he knew. It would be unsafe. It would be your duty to tell me there's a leak.

Well, in that analogy, you would be more like the person who knows his brake fluid is leaking but doesn't know what that means or doesn't think it's dangerous. You've heard of the religion but don't realize or don't believe all the terrible things if you don't convert.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Confuscionism is more of a philospohy as well as Buddism

Buddhism is quite similar to Christianity except for the "there can be only one" thing. It's not just a philosophy, it is by every measure a religion. They have gods, people who performed miracles, saviors who walked the earth, an afterlife (including lots of hells), monks, nuns, priests, lots of different sects, etc.

When living in Japan I met a Buddhist proselytizer and also a guy who would do something similar to the Islamic thing of praying a few times a day.

[jayjay]

Actually, an analogy I like better is the group of people who share the delusion that their office building is on fire. There is no actual fire, nor is there any false indication of a fire (no smoke, no smoke smell, no heat), but this group of people is absolutely convinced there is a raging fire in the building and has engaged in a physical effort to herd everybody out of the building to save them from the fire. If they were to merely shrug and say "I tried to warn him", and they sincerely believed there was a fire, they wouldn't be living up to their religion's demands. They should be in there dragging people down the stairs and on to the sidewalk.

Of course, they'd all be arrested for assault and possible psych evaluation, but at least they'd be consistent in their beliefs. Whether those charges and evaluations are necessary or fair is pretty much left up to how you view the beliefs, I'd think.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by sailor

Torquemada? Is that you?

You'll have to explain this one.

Do you disagree with the notion that if the interpretation that there's an eternal heaven or hell is correct, that anything that leads to one or the other would be far more important than anything else in life?

[Malthus]

Personally, I think everyone has a positive duty to proseletyze - Christians, Atheists, Jews, Hindus, whatever; believers in many gods or none. Make it a big conversion contest. Only, you are only allowed to do so in one manner and one manner only - by demonstrating the correctness of your beliefs through your conduct towards others.

Let Christians show that Christianity really makes one love another as themselves. Let Athiests demonstrate that belief in a diety or dieties is in no way required for personal morality. But everyone must show and not tell.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

You'll have to explain this one.

Do you disagree with the notion that if the interpretation that there's an eternal heaven or hell is correct, that anything that leads to one or the other would be far more important than anything else in life?

I'm not sure why an afterlife should be more important than this life. Can you elaborate on that?

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Interesting to hear him say that (and say that he's always said that) - I'm pretty sure I've heard him say almost the opposite one some show or other.

I'm not going to watch the video twice, but I thought he said he had always said the opposite.

I'm surprised he thought the psalms are in the new testament. Was that a joke?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I'm not sure why an afterlife should be more important than this life. Can you elaborate on that?

Because IF you buy into the cosmology, the afterlife lasts a whole hell of a lot longer than this one.

[Vaderesque]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I'm not sure why an afterlife should be more important than this life. Can you elaborate on that?

Because it lasts for ever and ever and ever. And then, when you think it must be over, you realise it's only just begun. So, basically, a long time, would be the summary.

[Kalhoun]

I dunno...forever kind of takes the "duration" out of time, if you get my drift. There is no time, if it's forever, it just is. But that doesn't have anything to do with "importance." What kind of job will you have? Do you get new skills when you transition to the other side? Do you hang with your friends and family? Do you play canasta? I'm just not sure what the expectation is once I get there. I can make it as important or frivolous or hedonistic as I want, can't I?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I dunno...forever kind of takes the "duration" out of time, if you get my drift. There is no time, if it's forever, it just is. But that doesn't have anything to do with "importance." What kind of job will you have? Do you get new skills when you transition to the other side? Do you hang with your friends and family? Do you play canasta? I'm just not sure what the expectation is once I get there. I can make it as important or frivolous or hedonistic as I want, can't I?

Depends. In the Biblical Christian version of Heaven, you'll (literally) sing the praises of God all the livelong eternity and you'll like it! Sound good?

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Depends. In the Biblical Christian version of Heaven, you'll (literally) sing the praises of God all the livelong eternity and you'll like it! Sound good?

Uh, yeah. I'm giddy with anticipation.

[ITR champion]

The afterlife is not a sequence of moments that happens to be endless. Rather, it is a place without time. The common misconception seems to arise from cartoons and other unworthy sources, not from any sound understanding of the issue.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

I'm not going to watch the video twice, but I thought he said he had always said the opposite.

I'm surprised he thought the psalms are in the new testament. Was that a joke?

He did not seem to be in a joking mood at all, but that did puzzle me. Especially for a man who has admitted to taking as many full Gideon Bibles as he can from hotel rooms, and using them to hold up furniture, etc.

Something tells me he's going to be treating that pocket NT/Pslms/Prvbs with more respect.

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

I dunno...forever kind of takes the "duration" out of time, if you get my drift. There is no time, if it's forever, it just is. But that doesn't have anything to do with "importance." What kind of job will you have? Do you get new skills when you transition to the other side? Do you hang with your friends and family? Do you play canasta? I'm just not sure what the expectation is once I get there. I can make it as important or frivolous or hedonistic as I want, can't I?

I think the idea is it will be a completely different kind of existence. You won't be able to relate it to anything you're experiencing now, except maybe as a vague analogy. YOu won't have a body, at least not one like you have now. Words like "hedonism" or "frivolity" or "job" or "family" won't have any meaning. It will either be an eternity of transcendant joy or transcendant suffering.

Or so I've been told.

[Kalhoun]

Do I have a memory? Do I remember what my Earthly existence was?

If it's a completely different existence, will I know I'm floating blissfully along or being endlessly tortured (thanks, loving god!!!)? Will I have anything to compare my existence to?

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Wallenstein

"You should evangelise always. Occaisionally you may need to use words".

If you have to tell people you're a member of a particular faith, you're probably doing it wrong.

Except that I can do good deeds, be helpful & compassionate, etc. and be an adherent of a whole range of philosophies. Heck, I can do these things & be a fervent Ayn Rand Objectivist. BUT if I believe my good nature is due to my adherence to a certain POV that would benefit everyone, then I should specify what POV that is.

Something about Judaism being non-proselytizing- that was not necessarily always the case. Around the first centuries BCE to CE, there seems to have been Hillel-esque efforts to win Graeco-Romans to Noachic Monotheism. And there is presently a similar effort in some Hasidic groups, I think the Lubavitchers (it was a project from the late Rabbi Schneerson, IIRC). The Judaic non-proselytizing policy came about due to the brutal responses to such efforts from the Imperial Christian authorities .