Inculcation. He doesn’t mention it specifically but one can certainly pick it up from context.
Also he mentions “interuption marketting” a number of times in seeming relation to behaviours similar to and including your example. I’m not at all a marketter but I’ve no doubt this is a recognized (if terrible) marketting technique
I thought the article was mostly pretty fair if you understand it is written by a non-believer to believers.
Yes he takes a few shots at faith but not nasty ones and not beyond the pale of what I would expect of a similarly themed article from the other side.
All in all it seems like pretty good advice to me to convert the wafflers but diehard Athiests will not be converted by Christians anymore than diehard Christians will be converted by Atheists.
That hasn’t been my experience. I’ve been told many times that it has as much faith to be an atheist as a theist because “we know God doesn’t exist”. I even know atheists that don’t know what “atheist” means, and therefore refuse to be called atheists. Carl Sagan and Bill Maher come to mind.
Consider the random vagaries of life. There will be moments of extreme emotional vulnerability (as after the death of a loved one or receiving a bad medical diagnosis or losing a job or after a well-publicized disaster) where a message of this kind might seem extremely attractive. Approach 500 random people and I’m sure several are in this state and of those, one might buy into it regardless of any previous religious or irreligious attitude.
Or so I figure. I’ve been approached by random street preachers and while I do my best to be polite, it’s never been at a critical juncture of my life where I might be influenced in a radical new direction.
I think it’s very sad that you so completely missed the point and just as importantly, the overall tone, of that article. I’d say more but then I might be as judgmental as you have been, and although I’m not a Christian, I still try to avoid that.
btw, It was a good article that made some good points.
If he missed something it’s that I’d question how many Christians actually witness in the manner he is protesting. I’ve met lots of good Christians and the most aggressive witnessing they did was give me a card and say " Call me if you’d like to talk sometime" Their card was from their ministry. A Christian friend eventually invited me to his church long after we had become good friends and he knew of my Christian background and spiritual leanings.
OTOH a friend of mine did have a Christian customer ask if he could talk to him. He agreed providing he got equal time. After a few minutes of witnessing
I’d be interested in hearing from other atheist agnostic dopers about how they’ve been witnessed to.
Years ago in downtown Bangor ME. there was some Christian group that stood on three or four corners in the downtown square and preached in shouting voices. They hurt the downtown merchants but I’m sure they thought their mission was more important. The police wouldn’t stop them because they didn’t want to be accused of religious repression. IMO they should have been arrested for disturbing the peace like any other shouter would have been.
Realistically those examples are not the norm in Christianity but they’re more common than radical atheists.
I’ll agree that you can pick up things from context in the general article, but the comparisons of characteristics is very explicit and takes place right before disavowing a comparison of the two.
The problem with taking a few shots is it is going to turn off his target audience which I presume is fundamentalist evangelicals as they are the ones who primarily witness this way. If he want to get his message across he shouldn’t take any. I’d also say the first comparison and the parting shot come off as nasty. There are better comparisons for the first and the last shot is completely unnecessary. Also calling the target crazy (even by insinuation) is just foolish in a persuasive essay.
I would say that shots at the other side are always a bad idea when that side is presumed to be hostile to what you have to say. That goes for theists or atheists. Think of it like a theist who in an article for how atheists should talk theists insinuates that atheists lack morals.
He is undoubtedly condescending. For example, his ending shot…
Yeah, he’s having a bit of trouble disguising his own righteous arrogance.
As I was reading the article I was thinking of the countless proselytizing Christians I’ve known. I’m sure that article would have no effect whatsoever on them. None. And if the author really thought he could write an article like that to slow down the witnessing Christians, he doesn’t understand how to communicate with Christians any better than Christians understand how to communicate with atheists.
BTW, Christians* bother me all the time, but I can’t ever remember a single incident of an atheist trying to “convert” me.
*I could be wrong but I think the Saturday morning door-knockers in these parts don’t regard themselves as “Christians”?
The article was pretty good- better than what I expected. Of course there’s gonna be essential disagreements between believers & non-believers- and a kind understanding article from a believer about how to witness to a non-b is going to strike some non-b’s as condescending, arrogant, etc.
Incidentally, what the article recommends has been promoted for years in Evangelical C’tian circles- it’s called “relational/friendship evangelism”.
Now, public or door-to-door evangelization can rub a lot of people the wrong way, BUT there is a reason it’s been done for 2000 years (and yes, the Gospels even show Jesus sometimes standing in the public square & saying incendiary things about Himself)- sometimes it works. A casual passerby might just be pondering the things the witnesser is talking about, stop to discuss it, & get converted. It does indeed happen.
Incidentally, the covert message I get at times when some non-believers use the quote “Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words” (attributed to Francis of Assisi) is “Behave yourself & shut up.” The actual quote is good advice. The intent by some who quote it though is just an attempt to neutralize witnessers with a spiritual-sounding phrase.
I’m a Christian (IMHO, not a very good one) and I too cringe inwardly when others nvoke Christian passages and Christ and what-not in every other sentences. I don’t see a need to keep on emphasizing that anyone is a Christian; let your actions speak for yourself. It’s a personal thing; keep to yourself.
When talking to an atheist, or if an atheist immediately says “There’s no God” (for whatever reasons), I just shut up about my religion. Some other Christians I know may boo-boo me for being a coward or ‘being ashamed of my faith’. The thing is that is not the time for talking about it. There is a difference between have a dialogue and getting into a I’m right vs. you’re right debate.
The rule of thumb I have is - in what situation would I like to discuss about my faith? If the people involved as sincere in understanding, seeing my point of view and not just pull out the “Dude, you are so irrational” stick to beat me over with, then I will talk. Likewise, I believe it should be with the same attitude that Christians (or anyone else of any other religion) should approach non-believers - to understand and not to belittle them.
About Jesus and his earlier believers in public preaching/conversion: I believe that Jesus does that for the Jews; most of the times when he held “mass rallies” were at Jewish synagogue.
He is talking to a certain group of Christians and not all of them. His point that living the principles Christ taught is more important and more affective than proselytizing is correct. I’d say it’s a bit condescending but not nearly as much as the people it’s directed at.
This I agree with. 99% won’t get it. They’ll think they’re being persecuted in the name of the Lord and making deposits in their heavenly bank. I still think it needs to be said.
I like my friends tactic. Yes I’ll listen to you if you give me equal time to hear what think.
So alienating several is worth it just in case you find that one? Actually, I don’t find anything offensive about someone asking politely if they can talk to me about Jesus or inviting me to church. I can politely say no thanks, or I can engage them.
As I said, I think it’s a pretty small percentage of Christians who do the overly aggressive witnessing.
A small percentage of every group does all the annoying stuff and establishes the negative reputation of that group. This is because most of the group most of the time is invisible in their un-annoyingness.
Thing is about this particular group is that their annoying members aren’t just proselytizing on street-corners - some of them are trying (and occasionally succeeding) in getting laws passed.
