Telling folks what Christianity really teaches is hardly "proselytizing"

[Leumas]

The Gospels are packed full of stories about the Pharisees who were known for their hypocrisy and perjury.

The Pharisees are the archetype for the sort of modern day hypocritical Christians who are so often lambasted here.

It's worth noting that the anger that Jesus expressed towards the Pharisees was because they had corrupted the law of God with their rules and hence were leading the people astray. In effect they were idolizing the law instead of worshipping God.

My take is that Jesus didn't hate them. He was angry with them for what they were doing.

In this way Christianity, practiced as it should be, is not hate, but is the answer to hate. Oh, my! Is this leading us to a concrete thing we can do to counter hate?

....
Telling folks what Christianity really teaches is hardly "proselytizing".

if you had bother to read what I posted and had bothered to read the Gospels you'd know that Jesus forgave the Pharisees, converted a couple and accepted a couple more as his disciples.

Oh where to start oh where....

Other than that the statements are belied thoroughly by what the New Tall tales actually say Jesus said about hating one's own kin an kith to be worthy of the cult leader.... and other than that history definitively rives to smithereens the assertions with christianity's long wide trail and rivers of blood .... not to mention current affairs going on right now too with christianity's injustice and THEOCRATIC FASCISM.... there is of course the glaring No True Scotsman fallacy... or the denial of English language words.

Then there is of course the risible oblivious assertion that excoriating Jews and going around maligning them and promising them with gnashing of teeth and wailing in an ever lasting pit of fire... is justified because they did not accept Jesus' flimflam... and then going on to obliviously state that all this hate and injustice by Jesus... "practiced as it should be, is not hate, but is the answer to hate.... leading us to a concrete thing we can do to counter hate"...


I wonder how Ananias and Sapphira felt about "Christianity, practiced as it should be"

• Acts 5:1-11 Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?... And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.... Then fell she [Sapphira] down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

I wonder how these words from Jesus calling for hate and JIHAD will "lead us to a concrete thing we can do to counter hate"???

• Matthew 10:34-39 4 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
• Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
• Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
• John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. ...
• Matthew 15:24-26 He answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.
• Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• John 3:18 ...but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
• Matthew 21-24 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! ... Bethsaida! ...Tyre... Capernaum... shalt be brought down to hell.... I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
• Matthew 27:25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

I guess... Jesus said it best to describe the extent of benightedness in the above statements...

• Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Putting yourself up as the authority on what a Religion "really" teaches is presumptuous.

 

[8enotto]

Most christian folks don't get very far past "god is good" and "jesus died for our sins".
Why the obsession with this? They sure aren't too bothered to read anything for themselves.

 

[Darat]

I try to be careful when I address the beliefs of others - if it is a religion like say the RCC I am quite happy to tell someone who claims to be a RC - if they make a claim that is not in line with the RCC doctrines - that they are wrong or mistaken etc. Because their religion is one that has a clear authority that sets out what the beliefs are. (Indeed being a RC means you agree to follow that authority.) Keeping in mind for the RCC that the bible is not the ultimate authority - the authority for the RCC is of course the church itself - just quoting from the bible does not refute the beliefs and the doctrines of the RCC.

Other versions of Christianity may have a similar authority - for example CofE but some may have no such authority - lots of protestant denominations have no authority to set the beliefs, so the beliefs can be as personal as they wish them to be.

Another example would be a person who claims to be a biblical "literalist" - then we can quote chapter and verse at them, because they make such a claim and we can challenge what they claim the bible says.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Copying this from a previous thread as I think it applies here//

Witnessing/proselytizing has always fascinated me as a concept.

It's not the Golden Age of the Missionary anymore. WE'VE ALL HEARD OF THE BASIC FRAMEWORK, MYTHOLOGY, AND TENENTS OF ALL THE MAJOR RELIGIONS. We're not some uncontacted tribe who's never heard of Jesus or Mohammad or Joseph Smith or whatever on whom's shore just got rolled up on. None of this is new information to anyone here. Nobody at any point in this or any discussion of this type has spat out their coffee and gone "Wait? Muhammad was God's prophet? Jesus died for our Sins? Why am I just hearing about this? Why didn't you lead with that? Well now I'm totally onboard! Where do I sign up?"

WE'RE AWARE OF WHAT RELIGION'S ALL CLAIM TO OFFER. Everyone here, even other religious folks, have heard this sales pitch before.

Just repeating it over and over in a way that manages to max out both the "Rude" and "Clueless" sliders as if the problem is we just weren't listening the first 5,000 times and we'll immediately capitulate on hearing it the 5,001st time strikes as a poor use of one's time.

Even Ad Men don't take the "You can pester someone into agreeing with you" to this degree. "There's no such thing as bad publicity" is one thing, "There's no such thing as an unpleasant interaction" is on another level.

At times I wonder if it's a sort of passion play, you do it and then you go back into the bubble of other believers and tell a thrilling tale of how all you were doing trying to bring the word to people and... you would just not believe the rudeness (rudeness here defined as "Didn't immediately convert and had the utter audacity, the unmitigated gall, the absolute nerve to ask me the most basic questions or point out glaring errors in what I am saying") for some kind of sympathy brownie point with the other god botherers.

Or the age old Woo Slinger game of "Being stubbornly and proudly wrong until someone gets tired of hearing it and says something slighty snarky or vaguely dismissive, at which point claim the victim card, clutch your pearls as hard as you can, and leap up on the cross nails at the ready, having seen all the evidence you need of the hatred that lurks in the heart of the unbelievers."

I have little doubt believers going back to their flocks to breathlessly describe their horrible treatment at the hands of us big mean narrow-minded skeptics, letting everyone go around the room to solemnly nod in understanding and sympathy, is a common occurrence.

I mean better use of one's time then flying planes into skyscrapers or shooting up an abortion clinic but still rather useless.

 

[Thermal]

Most christian folks don't get very far past "god is good" and "jesus died for our sins".
Why the obsession with this? They sure aren't too bothered to read anything for themselves.

Pretty sure they go a little deeper. Most will read the violent parts of the bible and think "whoa...times sure have changed, haven't they?" Then they take the good and go "whoa...this bit of beauty and eternal truth is applicable even today".

I work with a Catholic nun, whose life revolves around serving the needy. She has never stoned anyone for eating shrimp, that I recall. Just because the church doctrine says x, y, and z, it doesn't mean that boots-on-the-ground are following that, much like we don't read the Declaration of Independence and assume slaveowning, and women or non-landowners being exempt from voting. Keep the good, acknowledge the bad whose time has passed.

 

[Darat]

Pretty sure they go a little deeper. Most will read the violent parts of the bible and think "whoa...times sure have changed, haven't they?" Then they take the good and go "whoa...this bit of beauty and eternal truth is applicable even today".

I work with a Catholic nun, whose life revolves around serving the needy. She has never stoned anyone for eating shrimp, that I recall. Just because the church doctrine says x, y, and z, it doesn't mean that boots-on-the-ground are following that, much like we don't read the Declaration of Independence and assume slaveowning, and women or non-landowners being exempt from voting. Keep the good, acknowledge the bad whose time has passed.

You perhaps should check the doctrines of the RCC (assuming you mean she is a roman catholic nun?) they certainly do not have a doctrine about stoning anyone for any crime.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Just because the church doctrine says x, y, and z, it doesn't mean that boots-on-the-ground are following that, much like we don't read the Declaration of Independence and assume slaveowning, and women or non-landowners being exempt from voting. Keep the good, acknowledge the bad whose time has passed.

All true, but this brings up the obvious question of why we should have dogma at all, rather than just have own's own beliefs that align to what we personally consider moral.

I know many Catholics (I was raised Catholic) who still proclaim themselves to be devout even though they don't consider birth control, gay marriage, or even abortion to be immoral. Why this need to be a member of a group that you so obviously disagree with, especially if they would consider your own chosen lifestyle to be a sin?

As far as the OP goes, Leumas has obviously taken on the "don't kill the messenger" mindset. He's just telling the truth, it's not his fault if others don't like it. It may be difficult for him to understand that for some of us (me), it's just competing mythology, and is at about the same level as arguing over the correct way to pronounce "wingardium leviosa."

 

[Thermal]

All true, but this brings up the obvious question of why we should have dogma at all, rather than just have own's own beliefs that align to what we personally consider moral.

I know many Catholics (I was raised Catholic) who still proclaim themselves to be devout even though they don't consider birth control, gay marriage, or even abortion to be immoral. Why this need to be a member of a group that you so obviously disagree with, especially if they would consider your own chosen lifestyle to be a sin?

IMO, the sense of community and tradition that keeps you motivated. Sure, it's the ideal to be a good person, but sometimes the nudge that a community provides is needed for some. Talking to a priest may be more comfortable for some.

In my occasional working with the nun, the church community provides an organized base of operations and full-time, dedicated workers, that can coordinate relief efforts better than a facebook group. When was the last time you saw a crew of atheists who spent hours every week arranging pre-made meals for shut-ins, for years on end? The local nun runs that too.

 

[Leumas]

IMO, the sense of community and tradition that keeps you motivated. Sure, it's the ideal to be a good person, but sometimes the nudge that a community provides is needed for some. Talking to a priest may be more comfortable for some.

In my occasional working with the nun, the church community provides an organized base of operations and full-time, dedicated workers, that can coordinate relief efforts better than a facebook group. When was the last time you saw a crew of atheists who spent hours every week arranging pre-made meals for shut-ins, for years on end? The local nun runs that too.

Have you looked? Or just because you did not see any then the nuns and churches you know are it and no others have anything like it???

 

[8enotto]

Mexico is christian, heavy on RCC and including a subcult or ten thousand of them that base off the RCC.
Few openly opine to atheist because it shuts doors to them. But they are covertly among the population.

Strict Jewish law cults to an openly gay church with a rainbow over the cross behind the alter exist. Even the long disavowed Santa Meurta cult is a catholic tradition group.

About 75% are wedding, baptism and funeral faithful. Most have little interest in official dogma at all and will never read a bible nor study thier faith.
But tell them they aren't christians and they get very unhappy. They believe and all that but don't make much effort to really define it. You won't see them in church any given Sunday morning.

The strictest cults go to little local temples and have thier own leaders, but will dearly respect a church in town. It's still another house of god after all. It doesn't matter those speaking at the alter during a ceremony aren't thier preferred leaders.

Laziness rules supreme. Only one sister of my wife is in a church every Sunday. Also Tuesday nights for a bible study and they assist in planning special events.

They have more religious symbols in thier living room than a cathedral would have, but don't talk of religion all the time in social situations. Not irritating people.
I even give them religious crap I find at work if it's nice. One man's trash, another man's treasure.

 

[Thermal]

Have you looked? Or just because you did not see any then the nuns and churches you know are it and no others have anything like it???

I don't think you understood the question. I asked when the last time you saw an atheist organization running a meals program for shut-ins for years and years?

Which of the list you provided does so? I looked through the surprisingly short list of groups (prob less than different faith churches in my county alone), and didn't see any such programs. Which, specifically, were you referring to?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I don't think you understood the question. I asked when the last time you saw an atheist organization running a meals program for shut-ins for years and years?

Which of the list you provided does so? I looked through the surprisingly short list of groups (prob less than different faith churches in my county alone), and didn't see any such programs. Which, specifically, were you referring to?

The atheists I know usually join up with like-minded organizations, even religious ones, because they don't feel the need to link altruism with proselytizing.

You don't have to advertise your particular mindset to help people.

 

[Thermal]

The atheists I know usually join up with like-minded organizations, even religious ones, because they don't feel the need to link altruism with proselytizing.

You don't have to advertise your particular mindset to help people.

Not sure what you mean? There is no proselytizing when you are working with the churches. That's kind of an unspoken rule. If someone asks about you or the group, you tell them, maybe give a contact number if one is requested, but you are there to do a job. It's not missionary o'clock.

The benefit of a church, is that I can work in any town and stroll right up to the local church or parsonage, and if they don't have an active program, they will put you in touch with a church that does. Convenient. It might take a while to even locate one of these atheist goodwill groups in a given town. Assuming they exist in any number in the average town/city. I can waltz up to any building with a cross on it, and get pointed in the right direction. And there are a lot of them.

 

[Leumas]

Not sure what you mean? There is no proselytizing when you are working with the churches. That's kind of an unspoken rule. If someone asks about you or the group, you tell them, maybe give a contact number if one is requested, but you are there to do a job. It's not missionary o'clock.

The benefit of a church, is that I can work in any town and stroll right up to the local church or parsonage, and if they don't have an active program, they will put you in touch with a church that does. Convenient. It might take a while to even locate one of these atheist goodwill groups in a given town. Assuming they exist in any number in the average town/city. I can waltz up to any building with a cross on it, and get pointed in the right direction. And there are a lot of them.

So the only things that exist are your churches and nuns and the milieu in which you travel... things you do not know about nor even try to research... just are not real in your reckoning... huh???

 

[Thermal]

So the only things that exist are your churches and nuns and the milieu in which you travel... things you do not know about nor even try to research... just are not real in your reckoning... huh???

....what??? That doesn't even mean anything.

You have, yet again, not understood the question posed to you:

-I asked you what atheist organizations are running programs like meals for shut-ins, that run for decades.

-You responded with a short Wikipedia list of Irreligious Organizations. Most had absolutely nothing to do with charity works, and some were nothing but freaking facebook groups to discuss atheism and stuff like that.

I am still awaiting an honest response from you. I take it that it will be a long wait?

 

[Leumas]

....what??? That doesn't even mean anything.

You have, yet again, not understood the question posed to you:

-I asked you what atheist organizations are running programs like meals for shut-ins, that run for decades.

-You responded with a short Wikipedia list of Irreligious Organizations. Most had absolutely nothing to do with charity works, and some were nothing but freaking facebook groups to discuss atheism and stuff like that.

I am still awaiting an honest response from you. I take it that it will be a long wait?

Your argument is reminiscent of Christian apologists' argument when they claim Jesus as a unique god with no precedent.

When rational people point out all the precedents... the casuists retort by saying that none of those precedents were named Jesus and thus they do not count.

Or when those apologists claim christianity as a religion of love and tolerance... and when rational people cite history... the casuists retort with No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Thermal]

Your argument is reminiscent of Christian apologists' argument when they claim Jesus as a unique god with no precedent.

When rational people point out all the precedents... the casuists retort by saying that none of those precedents were named Jesus and thus they do not count.

Or when those apologists claim christianity as a religion of love and tolerance... and when rational people cite history... the casuists retort with No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your post here has no relationship to the question posed. Do you not understand it? Shall I repost it and link to it 75 times, complete with bolding, highlighting, weird sizes, and a repetitive meme or two?

 

[Craig4]

....what??? That doesn't even mean anything.

You have, yet again, not understood the question posed to you:

-I asked you what atheist organizations are running programs like meals for shut-ins, that run for decades.

-You responded with a short Wikipedia list of Irreligious Organizations. Most had absolutely nothing to do with charity works, and some were nothing but freaking facebook groups to discuss atheism and stuff like that.

I am still awaiting an honest response from you. I take it that it will be a long wait?

Though I'm am usually loath to speak for others, I'm pretty sure no one else equates a question about feeding shut-ins with Christian apologetics.

Your argument is reminiscent of Christian apologists' argument when they claim Jesus as a unique god with no precedent.

...does not lead me to an association with "Meals on Wheels". I suspect that's true of most people.

 

[Steve]

The words written in the bible do not necessarily have a connection to what is actually taught by many of the myriad sects of Christianity. Claiming to know and to "tell folks what Christianity really teaches" may not be proselytizing but it is overly simplistic and naive in the extreme. You are merely adding your interpretation to a very long list of interpretations.