|
Since you have "convert" in quotation marks I am not sure what you mean by it. Heres my take on it
though and i thought it probably should be on the "for it" side.
Christians should share the word of God, the Good News. We should do this boldly. The Bible does
mention attempts to convert non-believers many times. In fact, anyone that had not heard the "Good
News" was at that time a nonbeliever because they didnt have the knowledge that Jesus Christ was the
Son of God sent to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. So in that sense, everyone is a
nonbeliever until they learn that fact. That means when Paul stood at the temple of the unknown god
and told the people there that he knows who the unknown God is. He was speaking to nonbelievers.
He was spreading the Good News. He was reaching out to those who were not reaching to God. And
isnt that the point of the Good News? Its about God reaching out to Man. The other religions are
about Man reaching out to God. Thats what makes Christianity so unique. God reaching out to man.
And God does use his people to do that sometimes.
That being said, I dont agree with forced conversions or trickery. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes but its just a book and thus if the Jewish book said the same thing then would Jews try to
convert "non believers"? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well.........its what the bible does say.
Me? I have never felt comfortable with the concept of stuffing my faith down anyone's throat.
It feels wrong to me, but I should probably be more interested in sharing my faith.
It just seems to private to talk that much to strangers about.
I don't like evangelism so much.
I am probably wrong in that.
But, that is how it seems to me.
Anyway, that's my thought on this topic. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well I'm Mormon and we have missionaries and are spreading the gospel. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The only two "evangelical" religions on earth are Christianity and Islam, and they are still
fighting over who gets to "control" things. I'm not sure about Muslims, but there seems to be a
debate in certain Christian circles over whether evangelizing is truly ordained or even necessary.
Personally, I think there are examples of it in the bible, but not outright endorsement, and
furthermore religion should be based upon attraction by your example, not outright salesmanship and
coercion. This fighting could be the doom of us all, so I am against evangelism in all religions. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe Christianity DOES require followers to talk to non-Christians about their beliefs. It was
probably written into the original teachings because in the beginning Christianity was a fledgling
spin-off of Judaism and it needed to gather followers. And clearly Jesus and his disciples believed
intently on baptism and preaching their word. What I absolutely do NOT believe the Bible mandates
is forcing your view on anyone else. You can put it out there, and you can inspire them by your
good deeds, but you also have to be respectful to them and leave the choice up to them. That's the
part where modern Bible thumpers fall down. They're so determined to tell the rest of us how sinful
and mistaken we are, and to legislate their own religious views as universal for everyone, that they
cross the line of being too forceful a lot of the time.
If you want to talk to me about religion we'll talk. If I make good points back at you please think
about them and don't just expect this to be a one-sided discussion where I'm supposed to fold,
repent, and become just like you. If you're strong in your religion then any tough questions I or
others ask would not be a threat to you and what you believe. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't think Jesus had a big thing about conversion mainly because he thought the end of the world
was imminent and so there wouldn't really be enough time to convert the world. He didn't
conceptualise christianity as having a 2000 year future history. He thought it would all come to an
end long before that, in the lifetimes of the people then living, as he said in the magic book. It's
obvious he wasn't exactly averse to it either, though. "Come with me and be a fisher of men". Wasn't
that one of his lines?
That's also why his followers didn't bother writing his material down at first. It was only later,
when they realised that the end of the world wasn't quite as imminent as they had expected it to be,
that they started to write it down. Of course, Jesus the magic man was completely wrong. The world
is still ticking away 2000 years later and the bible thumpers still expect it to end any minute. So,
so sad. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In my opinion, no, they shouldn’t. Live by the principles you want to, but don’t try to force it
onto others. That’s how I’ve always viewed any similar situation like this. But then again,
I’m not a Christian and I don’t go by Biblical code. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Christians should not go about converting non-Christians, nor should they proselytize. Instead, let
Christians of all denominations turn their faith and their words into concrete action that benefits
their immediate community and the world. If people see Christians as a positive force, both at the
macro and micro level, then their view of Christendom would likely improve exponentially and some
may even choose to convert or turn to religion for the first time.
Rather than distributing bibles and tracts on street corners, preaching in public places or going
door-to-door, let the world see Christians at work. Let the world see them tending to those who
government agencies and secular groups have forgotten about--let them tend to heroine and crack
cocaine addicts, feed the homeless, speak out against all forms of discrimination, defy state
authorities by sheltering refugees, illegal immigrants and people awaiting deportation in their
churches, establish church-based anti-racism groups, promote socialized, universal health care and
hold politicians to the fire when they fail to fight against injustice in our societies. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I wonder what the world view on "Christianity" would be today if throughout history the "church" had
shared it's message with people who were reaching out instead of spearheading it's message trying to
convert those who didn't want to hear it?
I know the argument can be made that there have been many who fought against it and eventually
accepted the message through the diligent efforts of a believer but I wonder if this acceptance
would have been realized through the believer living a life of sharing. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
30 Jul 2008 00:24
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
