and anyone trying to convert unbelievers is under the misconception that we care what they believe…we dont.
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)
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.
I don’t WANT religionists to evangelise, or think that they SHOULD, but if they don’t do it, they are massive hypocrites.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
People can do ‘good things’ under the aegis of any group. The religious aspect seems entirely unneccesary.
Torquemada? Is that you?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I’m not sure why an afterlife should be more important than this life. Can you elaborate on that?
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?