Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[chocolatechip]

Examples of notional conversations with acquaintances, to help clarify how people may feel.  FWIW, I've not had a conversation beyond 'A' in Scotland (apart from once when a missionary group came to my village, and every six months when the Jehova's Witnesses come to my office).  Religion is considered a private matter, to be discussed only if one is questioned.

 

A

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up on Sunday - we have church in the morning and a church picnic in the afternoon.

Me: Oh.  Okay - how about next Saturday?

 

B

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me:  Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

 

C

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me: Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

Her: Our church is very welcoming to new people, and you could meet the minister at the picnic.

Me: No, thank you.  Would Saturday be okay for Johnny to come over?

 

D

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me: Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

Her: I happen to have this DVD about our faith - would you like to take one?

Me: No, I'm not interested, thank you.  

Her: A lot of people have found the DVD to be really helpful in discovering a way to God.

Me: Really, I'm not interested.

 

L

A and B both seem "acceptable" and polite to me. C is pushy (but hopefully well-meaning), and D? Ugh.

 

However, if I knew that a particular acquaintance of mine didn't want to be asked, I would not pester them with B, just like I wouldn't like to always be pestered with invitations to activities on Sundays or other people's churches if those people knew I wasn't interested.

 

Perspectives on what is "acceptable" to others on the other side of the issue?

[Laura Corin]

Arctic Momma: I also find C and D to be offensive but my imagination is failing me. How would the conversation go? Thanks.

 

L

[Pawz4me]

The sentence I bolded above pretty much sums it all up for me.

 

Believe what you want, but don't try to make me feel like a moron because I don't believe the same thing you do. And for goodness sake, don't tell me I'm going to hell because of it. It's not helpful, whether or not you think you're sharing "the truth" with me, because although you may find it amazing and unbelievable, my truth is just as valid as yours is.

 

I find it amazing that there are self-proclaimed devout Christians who feel it's perfectly fine to judge others and their beliefs. I always thought Christians were supposed to set a good example, but that God did the judging.

 

The crux of the problem IMHO is that too many Christians follow (and in the process grossly misconstrue) Paul's teachings much more fervently than they follow the teachings of Christ or the examples He set  From my readings of the Bible, He didn't pester anybody to follow Him.  And He had something pretty clear to say about hypocrites standing on street corners preaching. ;)

[*Lulu*]

I know nobody in real life who would do either c or d. It's like a bad caricature of what people imagine fervent Christians to be, without actually having an index of relationship with a single one in person.

 

Ick and offensive. In fact I can't even think up a response to this that isn't hurt or incredulous. I'm done on this one.

Which brings us full circle:

 

I have never seen someone treated badly for A or B. The negative reactions come when it goes beyond that. So, based on my personal experience living throughout the Bible Belt, I just don't see people treating Christians badly.

 

So, if the rest is a caricature of Christianity- why the poor treatment that some are claiming is common?

 

I can only see two possibilities. (Although I have not had coffee yet-there may be more!)

 

1) Christians are sharing in a socially appropriate/non pushy manner and no one is upset. (IOW no persecution)

 

2) Christians are being socially tone deaf in their sharing and experiencing push-back. (IOW feeling persecuted)

[kiana]

I've definitely seen C and D, along with some that are far worse. I've been told at length that I have the wrong brand of Christianity, including someone who was chasing me down the sidewalk at school shouting at me.

 

Most haven't been that way. Most have been more along the lines of the Gideons handing out Bibles, I say "no thanks", and move on. I have no problem with that. I would have no problem with that if any other religion did that as well (including JW's on my doorstep), as long as they took "no" for an answer the first time.

[kiana]

1) Christians are sharing in a socially appropriate/non pushy manner and no one is upset. (IOW no persecution)

 

2) Christians are being socially tone deaf in their sharing and experiencing push-back. (IOW feeling persecuted)

 

I also think that a few people react with anger to A or B, but I don't believe it's that many. For a specific example, a friend of mine used to have her grandmother (who was an atheist) call on Sunday morning 15 minutes before church, and blow up when she said "Sorry, we have church, we must go," asking things such as how anyone could be so stupid as to believe in God, etc.

 

[TracyP]

Can we clarify what is meant by preaching?  I've been meaning sharing the gospel to those interested.  If someone says, "no thanks," not continuing. 

 

answer below

 

That's what we all meant who we're arguing that side of it in this thread. But while that should be obvious, I've discovered if there is any way to twist what is being said it will surely be done ;)

 

I am not trying to twist your words at all, but I am completely confused. You said that street preaching had its place, you said that you hand out DVDs, you mentioned something about gatherings where you preach at the ballpark. I thought this was the type of preaching we were talking about. I thought this was the type of preaching you were "gently" chiding other Christians for not participating in. If it was simply answering questions about their faith when asked, then *you* are twisting words. I don't recall any Christians on this thread saying they wouldn't do this. :confused:

[marbel]

The sentence I bolded above pretty much sums it all up for me.

 

Believe what you want, but don't try to make me feel like a moron because I don't believe the same thing you do. And for goodness sake, don't tell me I'm going to hell because of it. It's not helpful, whether or not you think you're sharing "the truth" with me, because although you may find it amazing and unbelievable, my truth is just as valid as yours is.

 

I find it amazing that there are self-proclaimed devout Christians who feel it's perfectly fine to judge others and their beliefs. I always thought Christians were supposed to set a good example, but that God did the judging.

 

I'm straying off topic, now, but... what the heck. :001_smile:   And I don't want to start a fight with Catwoman. :lol:   (Or anyone else of course.) But...

 

I am really not sure about the bolded.  Are there multiple truths?  How can that be? 

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?"   Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be.  But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm straying off topic, now, but... what the heck. :001_smile:   And I don't want to start a fight with Catwoman. :lol:   (Or anyone else of course.) But...

 

I am really not sure about the bolded.  Are there multiple truths?  How can that be? 

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?"   Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be.  But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for instance. 

[marbel]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for instance. 

 

Well, you've got me there.... :-)

 

But I am thinking of objective reality.    Either it's wrong to shoplift or it is not.  Still people shoplift and and they believe that it is OK.  Their truth is:  taking stuff from stores without paying is OK. 

 

Or for this thread:  either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not.  It can't be both.

 

KWIM? 

[Rosie_0801]

Or for this thread:  either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not.  It can't be both.

 

But it can be argued about! :lol:

 

Either we are sinners or we aren't. That is in the eye of the beholder, I think.

[marbel]

But it can be argued about! :lol:

 

Either we are sinners or we aren't. That is in the eye of the beholder, I think.

 

That is for sure!

 

Mmmm.... I guess I will keep pondering this one.

 

[Rosie_0801]

 

Mmmm.... I guess I will keep pondering this one.

 

 

These things have kept minds occupied for centuries, so I don't think there's any reason to hurry. Have a bikkie. In my opinion it is not a *real* Anzac biscuit unless it is somewhat misshapen.

 

[marbel]

These things have kept minds occupied for centuries, so I don't think there's any reason to hurry. Have a bikkie. In my opinion it is not a *real* Anzac biscuit unless it is somewhat misshapen.

 

 

 

Mmmm..... I haven't had an Anzac in a long time.  Fond memories. Not sure why I can't make some myself.  Maybe I'm not sure I have the correct recipe. Or one might say, the true Anzac.  :lol:

 

All the best cookies are a bit misshapen. 

 

Thanks!  It's breakfast time here.  Coffee's almost ready.

 

 

[Onceuponatime]

 

Or for this thread:  either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not.  It can't be both.

 

KWIM? 

 

This is not a simple question. There are many "truths" to be teased out here.

 

*First there is the question of whether the person of Jesus actually existed

*did he die the way the Bible says he died

* then whether there actually is supposed to be a Christ

*what is a Christ

*and whether Jesus is it  

* why do sinners need to be saved

*from what

*for what

*who is a sinner

*what is sin

*How does Christ's death save anyone

 

etc....

 

If even Christians can differ on some of these "truths," who is right?

[brehon]

I know nobody in real life who would do either c or d. It's like a bad caricature of what people imagine fervent Christians to be, without actually having an index of relationship with a single one in person.

 

Ick and offensive. In fact I can't even think up a response to this that isn't hurt or incredulous. I'm done on this one.

Again, Arctic Mama, your experiences do not negate experiences others have had. I *have* personally had conversations like C and D more than once. I have been accosted with the persistent "fervent Christian" telling me that I'm doomed to hell for being the "wrong" type of Christian. I'm not sure what you mean by index of relationship; I will tell you that I have had just as many people I know prostlyze like this as random people on the street. It's especially lovely when a child deals with this.

 

Conversation E

 

Me: Hey, friend! Do you want to get together Sunday afternoon?

 

School Mate: I can't. I have services in the morning and then a church wide picnic later. Do you want to come?

 

Me: No, thanks. Ask your mom about playing next Saturday then?

 

S.M.: Are you sure you won't come? Everyone will be welcome. There'll be games, food, and other stuff.

 

Me: No, thanks. Next Saturday?

 

S.M.: Why wouldn't you want to come? Don't you love Jesus? It'll be great! There's this new preacher coming and he's gonna talk to all the kids about how important it is to be saved.

 

Me: No. Thank you. My family already goes to a church that we're happy with. Are ya interested in getting together later?

 

S.M.: What church? If you don't come to my church and be saved, my mom/dad/preacher says you'll go to hell.

 

Me: o.O

 

This is not unusual in certain parts of the country. If you don't do this (or the adult version therein), great. You may be done with the conversation; why you would be incredulous is beyond me. *This* is the stuff certain Christians peddle. It's not hyperbole or made up. Instead of "being done", why don't you acknowledge other people's experiences as not only valid, but hurtful to them and, quite frankly, damaging to people's perception of Christianity,

 

Signed - a Christian who probably doesn't meet your definition.

[MercyA]

But I am thinking of objective reality.    Either it's wrong to shoplift or it is not.  Still people shoplift and and they believe that it is OK.  Their truth is:  taking stuff from stores without paying is OK. 

 

Or for this thread:  either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not.  It can't be both.

 

KWIM? 

 

Yes. One person might say, "All paths lead to God." Another person, in response, might quote Jesus' words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6) or Peter's: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved†(Acts 4:12).  

 

Both people's statements cannot be objectively true.

 

Rosie, I had to google Anzac biscuits. Coconut? Butter? "Golden syrup?" Count me in.  :)

[Rosie_0801]

If even Christians can differ on some of these "truths," who is right?

 

And now, since I was just reading an article on Stoicism...

 

I completely accept that the Hive will argue about these things forever.

 

 

:lol:

 

And with that, I'm going to watch a Dr Who rerun and go to bed because it's a bad sign when I start thinking I'm funny.

[Onceuponatime]

And now, since I was just reading an article on Stoicism...

 

I completely accept that the Hive will argue about these things forever.

 

 

:lol:

 

And with that, I'm going to watch a Dr Who rerun and go to bed because it's a bad sign when I start thinking I'm funny.

 

I think you're funny, too. :laugh:

[Laurie4b]

Examples of notional conversations with acquaintances, to help clarify how people may feel.  FWIW, I've not had a conversation beyond 'A' in Scotland (apart from once when a missionary group came to my village, and every six months when the Jehova's Witnesses come to my office).  Religion is considered a private matter, to be discussed only if one is questioned.

 

A

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up on Sunday - we have church in the morning and a church picnic in the afternoon.

Me: Oh.  Okay - how about next Saturday?

 

B

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me:  Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

 

C

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me: Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

Her: Our church is very welcoming to new people, and you could meet the minister at the picnic.

Me: No, thank you.  Would Saturday be okay for Johnny to come over?

 

D

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me: Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

Her: I happen to have this DVD about our faith - would you like to take one?

Me: No, I'm not interested, thank you.  

Her: A lot of people have found the DVD to be really helpful in discovering a way to God.

Me: Really, I'm not interested.

 

L

 

I think Option C happens relatively frequently in normal social interaction. It occurs when someone has extended an invitation and senses or guesses at something that is preventing the person from accepting, who would otherwise accept. I myself have changed my answer from no to yes in such situations.

 

Friend: Would you like to stay to dinner?

Me: No thanks, we really should be going.

Friend (Anticipating why I might have said no): Really, it's no trouble. I was planning a gluten-free meal anyway--just fish and vegetables on the grill.

Me:  Oh, okay, that would be nice. (I was worried about  gluten-free stuff and surely wasn't going to say that for fear she'd go to trouble I didn't want her to. ) or No thanks, I need to get home for xyz. (She doesn't have to know why I said no. She makes a good guess and it might change my mind given new info.)

 

Friend: Would you like to come to book club with me tonight? We're discussing x. (A book she knows I've read. )

Me: Thanks, but I think I should decline.

Friend (depending on why she thinks I said no): The club is open and kind of loosey goosey. People bring friends--you won't be "crashing". It also doesn't mean those friends are committing to the group. I think you'd like it.

or There are people who just like to listen to those of us who enjoy pontificating. Not everyone talks. (for instance, if she thinks I'm not coming because I usually don't say much and would feel pressured.)

Me: maybe, oh, okay or maybe no. It depends on whether I would never set foot in a book club or whether I was saying no because of something she then addressed. It would be normal conversation to then explain this.

 

I would interpret these kinds of come-backs not as rude, but the opposite: as someone who desired my presence making sure that I understand what the experience will actually be like, in case I'm saying no because of a misconception. I interpret that as friendly, not pushy.

 

And though I truly loathe shopping parties, I would think a friend hostessing was being genuine when she said she wanted my company but I didn't have to buy. I do understand there is a party/hostessing aspect and she doesn't want me to feel left out, or that she doesn't get how much guilt I feel for not purchasing when I don't want to! ;)

 

In your example C, the friend inviting might be thinking you are declining because you'd had previous experiences at churches where you felt like an outsider and no one spoke to you, and she's mentioning the friendliness so that you know this won't happen at this event. 

 

So much of this depends on the relationship the people have with each other, the tones of voices or body language, AND the past experiences each person brings into their interpretation of words, intent, etc. The misfire in interaction can come from either side in communication. The friend issuing the invite could be misreading the "no thanks" as coming from a different motivation than: "I would never go to a church event" and out of genuine friendliness, issue new info. She may never have experienced "pushy" churches or people and simply be explaining that the invitee would experience welcome. The church picnic might well be an essentially secular event except for a blessing over the meal. (Many church picnics are.)  The invitee may have been burned before and read "pushy" into what is meant to be "friendly." 

 

OTOH, a friendly invitee may view an invitation to a church picnic as an innocuous invitation to have some fun at the lake for the afternoon, and never have it cross her mind when she says yes that there will be preaching and a baptism in the lake. She may not have known that there could be more behind what she thought was a casual, friendly invitation.

[KarenNC]

Even B (and C) can become a problem when they're repeated *every* time you encounter the person.

 

Arctic Mama, it may help clarify if you can give us an example of a conversation that ends up with giving them the dvd. I'd also love to see a link to the dvd, personally, so that I have a better idea of what we're talking about.

[Heather in Neverland]

I think some people are using the terms "preaching" and "proselytizing" to mean the same thing, but I don't think everyone agrees on that. That's yet another point of confusion in this discussion, IMO.

 

Personally, I don't think they are the same thing. To me (and I'm not speaking for others in this discussion -- just for myself) "preaching" is a congregational activity. That is ... to prepare a lecture on a biblical topic and present it as a speech to a group of people. It is more informational or educational in intent.

 

"Proselytizing" is not necessarily congregational or group oriented. It can be, but doesn't have to be. However, "proselytizing" is not a simply a lecture on a biblical topic, but rather an intentional means to try to recruit or convert someone else to one's particular religion/faith/sect/etc. Sometimes people use the term "evangelize" in place of "proselytize." I think mostly just Christians call it "evangelizing," though because that is the biblical word. "Proselytizing" can come from any faith though, so I tend to use the term "proselytize" as a more general word.

 

** Just to clarify... the words I put in quotes above are simply in quotes so as to separate them as examples of terminology.

Thank you for making this distinction. It is an important one. I have watched this discussion and thought I would stay out of it but...

 

It is true that Christians are instructed in the Bible to "go forth and make disciples of all nations" and this, the great commission, is what typically leads to evangelizing/proselytizing. And don't get me wrong, as a fervent Jesus-freak, I believe in sharing my faith.

 

However

 

Sharing is the key word for me and in my mind it implies a positive, two-way interaction and both parties are willing participants.

 

Imagine children sharing their toys...the sharing occurs because both children want the same thing. One child beating the other child over the head with the toy is not "sharing" and so it is with the Christian faith, at least for me.

 

If you are interested, sure, I'm happy to share but I'm not going to beat you over the head with my beliefs and call that "sharing" my faith.

 

As to the original topic, I think "persecution" in the US is a load of nonsense. I've seen persecution up close and personal over here (related to Christianity as well as other religions) and it is ugly in ways most Americans cannot imagine.

[Denise in Florida]

A and B are fine.

 

C and D are rude IMO.

 

Mostly, I've had 'B' responses IRL from people I know. I would, and have, cut someone off at 'C'. No-one ever makes it to 'D' - I'm outta there!

 

~

 

Funny memory. I'm officially 'saved' - my cousin and I were holidaying at my grandparents house on the coast the summer we were 16. We were on our way home from the beach one evening when we got waylaid by a beach evangelist.

 

Being polite 16 year olds, we didn't tell him to get lost. We listened for a bit, thinking after 5 minutes or so we'd get away. Oh, no. No, no.

 

45 minutes later we were still there. We didn't feel threatened, but we couldn't seem to get away. Dude was by now asking us to accept Jesus into our heart - cousin whispered to me this would be the quickest way to extricate ourselves - so we knelt on the beach and the dude prayed over us and we said 'Yes, we accept Jesus in our hearts'. He gave us the details of bible study next evening and we ran home, by now an hour late.

 

Our uncle gave us what for. We were an hour late, our grandparents were worried, and not inclined to accept our story of the insistent preacher and being 'saved.'

 

Idk. It probably doesn't count if you only do it so as to get home as quickly and politely as possible. I don't recount it to be offensive, just because I remembered the one time I didn't cut someone off at 'C'.

 

I guess he went home and felt great that he'd saved these two teen girls. It was lose-lose all round. He'd wasted his time, and we were grounded.

 

 

I loved your story. Thanks for sharing. This is the type of 'salvation' that was unfortunately prevalent in the '70s early '80s. My father, who was very active in his church, really dislike these types of revivals. 

 

I think it was this type of thing that lead to a back lash against evangelism in many congregations. 

 

It may also have lead me to view the topic through a distorted lens.  This entire thread has been enlightening. :)

[Scrub Jay]

I know nobody in real life who would do either c or d. It's like a bad caricature of what people imagine fervent Christians to be, without actually having an index of relationship with a single one in person.

 

Ick and offensive. In fact I can't even think up a response to this that isn't hurt or incredulous. I'm done on this one.

 

It's not a caricature.  Every single experience I have had with someone randomly proselytizing to me on the street has been at this level or worse.  I literally walked off the T in Boston once just to get away from a woman.

 

I will say the Mormons who come to my door in this neighborhood take No Thank You well and politely.  But that's been my only decent experience (still not a fan of them coming to my door, which makes my dog bark and once woke up my sleeping baby).  Otherwise, rudeness all around.  And I think it is pretty telling I was targeted a lot more as a young adult than now, too.

 

[Denise in Florida]

I'm straying off topic, now, but... what the heck. :001_smile:   And I don't want to start a fight with Catwoman. :lol:   (Or anyone else of course.) But...

 

I am really not sure about the bolded.  Are there multiple truths?  How can that be? 

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?"   Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be.  But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

 

Short answer - 'yes'

 

Most people experience the world through the filter of their personal backgrounds, beliefs and experiences.  

 

Even something clear cut as a noun can have various meanings - think of the different responses to 'what is a home?" 'What is a family?"

 

When you are then discussing a concept such as faith, truth, peace, justice it becomes even more complex.  

 

There are two primary dangers when entering this kind of discussion:

 

1 - assuming everyone's reality is the same as yours

2 - assuming everyone's reality is different than yours

 

:)

[Denise in Florida]

Well, you've got me there.... :-)

 

But I am thinking of objective reality.    Either it's wrong to shoplift or it is not.  Still people shoplift and and they believe that it is OK.  Their truth is:  taking stuff from stores without paying is OK. 

 

Or for this thread:  either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not.  It can't be both.

 

KWIM? 

 

Sadly, this is where I depart from some dear Calvinist friends. 

 

I believe that Christ died for the entire world.

My friends believe that He died for the 'elect' - those predestined for salvation

I also understand that some people believe His death covers the entire world Christian or not

[KarenNC]

I loved your story. Thanks for sharing. This is the type of 'salvation' that was unfortunately prevalent in the '70s early '80s. My father, who was very active in his church, really dislike these types of revivals. 

 

I think it was this type of thing that lead to a back lash against evangelism in many congregations. 

 

It may also have lead me to view the topic through a distorted lens.  This entire thread has been enlightening. :)

 

I have to admit the 70s and 80s were not shining moments for some sections of Christianity in the US, or at least in some areas of the country. I grew up not far from PTL/Heritage USA (for those that aren't familiar it was a Christian theme park and entertainment complex--we went many times as my family members were big supporters) and have been to numerous revivals. My constant exposure to the likes of the 700 Club, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Ernest Angley, Jim and Tammy Bakker, Kenneth Copeland, Rex Humbard, etc growing up has definitely shaped my view of proselytizing/witnessing/evangelism.

[Haiku]

My two worst experience with Christian pushiness (apart from my aunt telling me when I was six that I would go to hell if my parents didn't take me to church) were related to my dd having HIV.

 

One involved a fellow adoptive parent who adopted a child thought to have HIV. When the child arrived, it was discovered that she didn't. The parent took the opportunity to spam our HIV adoption list with messages praising god for curing her child because of their prayers. She could not accept that her child had been misdiagnosed and was apparently so clueless that she couldn't see how hurtful it was to claim that her child had been singled out for cure while all the rest of ours hadn't. We eventually had to remove her from the list because she wouldn't. shut. up.

 

The other was when we were walking our dog and two people making a movie for their church wanted to talk to us about why we aren't Christian. It ended with them praying out loud that god would heal our child of HIV and then giving us their card and asking us to call them when she was healed. Predictably, it has been many years and she's still not healed, even though they assured me that god would heal her because they asked him to. The guy actually came into the store I worked at several years later, recognized me, and asked me why we hadn't called.  :confused1:

[SadieMarie]

Yes, totally okay.

 

I don't think anyone means to make you feel like a point to be made versus a person... I think they genuinely care about you and that is why they went out of their way to say something in the first place. It isn't easy to share the Word for a lot of people. Some people have social anxiety, and sharing in this manner makes them nervous. It's actually flattering that they chose you to talk to about it, if you look at it from that POV. Obviously that doesn't apply as much to a random person spreading the Word. I think they also care, but obviously it's on a less personal level.

I believe you. But what I think they care about is my soul, not the person I am. And I understand that from their point of view it is my soul or salvation, or however you would say it, that is the more important. So I get that from their perspective they care.

 

I also feel the need to say that my family is a mixed group of Christians, of different denominations, and I love them all and respect their beliefs even though I no longer share them. And they accept that I have no interest in sharing them and love me and respect that I get to choose my own path. I have had friends who are very Christian (one who worked for Campus Crusade for Christ, so very, very Christian) and none of them ever made me feel uncomfortable or pushed anything on me. So I am talking about being approached by people who I do not know, either at home or in a public place. And that is not something that I have to deal with frequently where I live. And I feel really lucky about that after reading about other people's experiences.

 

I do live close to a college campus so every once in a while someone shows up who wants to scream at people about hell and damnation. Them I just ignore. It seems to me, based on my exposure to them, that they have some mental health issues. That is just my impression, not saying all street preachers, or whatever you call them, are mentally ill. So please, just saying that they seem unstable, maybe it is the angry tone.

[Haiku]

Reading all this stuff reminds me of Brother Jed, whom many of us probably remember from our university days. His visits were always thoroughly enjoyed where I went to school. We would skip class to sit around and listen to his inane babbling. I remember reading his book and thinking he actually came off as a lucid person in print, and his salvation story has nothing in common with what he ultimately chose to devote his life to. I wonder whether he really believes that his "putting a penis in your mouth is like sticking pizza up your nose" style of harassment will really win people to his religion or whether he just enjoys haranguing people and being notorious.

 

ETA: His daughters were so cute. I wonder what ever became of them.

[Laura Corin]

 The friend issuing the invite could be misreading the "no thanks" as coming from a different motivation than: "I would never go to a church event" and out of genuine friendliness, issue new info. She may never have experienced "pushy" churches or people and simply be explaining that the invitee would experience welcome. The church picnic might well be an essentially secular event except for a blessing over the meal. (Many church picnics are.)  The invitee may have been burned before and read "pushy" into what is meant to be "friendly." 

 

I can see how that misreading might happen, especially in an area where Christianity is so much the norm that not wanting to go to a picnic because it's a church picnic might be unusual.  You then run up against the invitee having to give theological reasons for not going, which is probably exactly where the invitee does not want to go.  

 

Can you suggest a way to shut down the conversation without straying into what (to me) is the private area of personal faith and without getting really rude?

 

L

[poppy]

You know who I think was my favorite evangelist ever? Fred Rogers.  He never had to talk about faith, he just let kids know they are precious.  He was a huge influence on so many children. Some of whom grew up to learn he was a minister and let that influence their lives. Others just felt his warmth and patience, that let it be a positive influence on their lives.  Letting people know they are loved and genuinely good inside is so wonderful.

[Mom-ninja.]

Very true. I have read the Bible (the Protestant and Episcopalian versions ;) ) multiple times, spent several years studying lay ministry with the Episcopal Church, in the church every time the doors opened (in several different denominations) for close to 30 years, etc, and I still ended up a polytheist. Honestly, actually having my daughter read and study the Bible in its entirety may turn out to have been almost an inoculation against proselytizing and prooftexting (along with her experiences with her extended family and local homeschooling circles). That wasn't my intention (aiming for cultural literacy), but seems to be the result at the moment.

The same is happening with my kids. We're reading and discussing the Bible and it's just strengthening their atheism.

 

 

Well, sure people have varying beliefs, and that is why I think all Christians should actually read the Bible to see what it actually says.  People can't always just rely on others for that... they could be wrong!!  

 

And of course everyone who reads the exact same words in the Bible come to the exact same conclusions as to what it means. Take the examples I quoted below. There is even confusion as to what different people mean using the word "preaching" just to give one small instance of people noting having the same interpretation of the same word or words.

 

 

 

Can we clarify what is meant by preaching?  I've been meaning sharing the gospel to those interested.  If someone says, "no thanks," not continuing. 

Here ya go. The word preaching is causing confusion by what people actually mean when they use it.

 

That's what we all meant who we're arguing that side of it in this thread. But while that should be obvious, I've discovered if there is any way to twist what is being said it will surely be done ;)

Another admission that there is always a way to twist what is being said and that this twisting will surely be done. Which is exactly what happens with interpretations of the Bible. All. the. time.

 

 

It's not just a simple, "Read the Bible and see the truth for yourself," cause those words mean lots of different things to lots of people.

 

 

 

 

I am really not sure about the bolded.  Are there multiple truths?  How can that be? 

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?"   Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be.  But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

Because religious beliefs are not objective. Not in the least. So multiple truths simply means that there is no way at all to "prove" that there is only ONE truth. People make statements like "my reality" and so forth as a reflection of knowing that not everyone shares that belief.

 

Yes, everyone's beliefs are just as valid as others because no one can prove his/her belief is right and no one can disprove someone else is wrong.

[Dana]

It's not just a simple, "Read the Bible and see the truth for yourself," cause those words mean lots of different things to lots of people.

 

And, as always, which translation?

 

My son wants to read Canterbury Tales later this year. He asked for a translation rather than reading it in Middle English. That's fine...but something is lost in the translation. And that's going to be even more the case with the Bible.

[Mergath]

I'm straying off topic, now, but... what the heck. :001_smile:   And I don't want to start a fight with Catwoman. :lol:   (Or anyone else of course.) But...

 

I am really not sure about the bolded.  Are there multiple truths?  How can that be? 

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?"   Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be.  But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

 

Of course there can be multiple truths.  Haven't you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant?

[*Lulu*]

I also think that a few people react with anger to A or B, but I don't believe it's that many. For a specific example, a friend of mine used to have her grandmother (who was an atheist) call on Sunday morning 15 minutes before church, and blow up when she said "Sorry, we have church, we must go," asking things such as how anyone could be so stupid as to believe in God, etc.

 

Okay.

 

If someone reacts to approach A or B with an angry outburst or slurpy throwing I think it is more likely that they have either had a very bad experience with the church or Christianity or they have some sort of mental health/personality issue than they are attempting to persecute Christians.

 

If we are going to assume street preachers yelling "you're going to burn in hell" at passersby are doing so because of a mental health issue than we have to assume that unprovoked slurpy throwing is also the result of a mental health issue.

 

Of course there is the fact that some people are just rude...

 

 

(Edited because I realized my language was more inflammatory than conciliatory.)

[Truscifi]

That's what we all meant who we're arguing that side of it in this thread. But while that should be obvious, I've discovered if there is any way to twist what is being said it will surely be done ;)

 

While it may seem obvious to you because it is your experience, it is not a common experience for me, and apparently for many others here. I can assure you that is not what I have been thinking of when reading your comments about handing out DVDs. The only people to ever try to give me religious materials were complete strangers or family members. And neither did so in the context of friendly conversation.

 

I know nobody in real life who would do either c or d. It's like a bad caricature of what people imagine fervent Christians to be, without actually having an index of relationship with a single one in person.

 

Ick and offensive. In fact I can't even think up a response to this that isn't hurt or incredulous. I'm done on this one.

 

I am very glad you don't do that. I can assure you that many do. I have friends who do a and who have done b once or twice but when I declined stopped offering. I have also on occasion asked them questions to understand more about their faith. They shared their beliefs without using it as an opportunity to try to convert me.

 

The people who do c or d or worse don't make it to the point of being friends. Typically I try to avoid them because they do it every time I see them. One particular family I and my son were both very relieved to find had gone to a different dojo because the kids would literally follow ds around asking him to go to church with them, why he wouldn't go, what was wrong with him that he didn't love Jesus, did he know about hell, did he know we were all going to hell because we wouldn't go to church, etc. He had to go sit in the car and lock the door to get away from them while dh and I were in class. Every week. This is an example of the kind of "sharing" many people on here are complaining about.

[marbel]

Of course there can be multiple truths.  Haven't you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant?

I know I am not articulating this well and I should probably stop but I will give it one more try.

 

Regardless of what the men perceived/felt, the truth or reality of the elephant was unchanged.   The physical characteristics of the elephant had nothing to do with their beliefs about it based on what they felt and heard.   There was an elephant standing there.   

 

I believe in God.  If there is no God, I am wrong, despite my belief.  God's existence (or nonexistence) does not depend on my belief or lack of belief.   

[kiana]

Reading all this stuff reminds me of Brother Jed, whom many of us probably remember from our university days. His visits were always thoroughly enjoyed where I went to school. We would skip class to sit around and listen to his inane babbling. I remember reading his book and thinking he actually came off as a lucid person in print, and his salvation story has nothing in common with what he ultimately chose to devote his life to. I wonder whether he really believes that his "putting a penis in your mouth is like sticking pizza up your nose" style of harassment will really win people to his religion or whether he just enjoys haranguing people and being notorious.

 

ETA: His daughters were so cute. I wonder what ever became of them.

 

He came to my graduate school alllll the time!

 

There were people who would deliberately put on their most sexualized outfits and meander past him in their high spiky heels just to watch him froth at the mouth.

[Guest]

Which brings us full circle:

 

I have never seen someone treated badly for A or B. The negative reactions come when it goes beyond that. So, based on my personal experience living throughout the Bible Belt, I just don't see people treating Christians badly.

 

So, if the rest is a caricature of Christianity- why the poor treatment that some are claiming is common?

 

I can only see two possibilities. (Although I have not had coffee yet-there may be more!)

 

1) Christians are sharing in a socially appropriate/non pushy manner and no one is upset. (IOW no persecution)

 

2) Christians are being socially tone deaf in their sharing and experiencing push-back. (IOW feeling persecuted)

 

My negative experiences are online.  Like if I don't agree with a certain topic, and say why (if it applies to the conversation).  Then, certain people get angry and start the name-calling or insulting Christianity.  It's very hypocritical/intolerant. 

[chocolatechip]

I think Option C happens relatively frequently in normal social interaction. It occurs when someone has extended an invitation and senses or guesses at something that is preventing the person from accepting, who would otherwise accept. I myself have changed my answer from no to yes in such situations.

 

Friend: Would you like to stay to dinner?

Me: No thanks, we really should be going.

Friend (Anticipating why I might have said no): Really, it's no trouble. I was planning a gluten-free meal anyway--just fish and vegetables on the grill.

Me:  Oh, okay, that would be nice. (I was worried about  gluten-free stuff and surely wasn't going to say that for fear she'd go to trouble I didn't want her to. ) or No thanks, I need to get home for xyz. (She doesn't have to know why I said no. She makes a good guess and it might change my mind given new info.)

 

Friend: Would you like to come to book club with me tonight? We're discussing x. (A book she knows I've read. )

Me: Thanks, but I think I should decline.

Friend (depending on why she thinks I said no): The club is open and kind of loosey goosey. People bring friends--you won't be "crashing". It also doesn't mean those friends are committing to the group. I think you'd like it.

or There are people who just like to listen to those of us who enjoy pontificating. Not everyone talks. (for instance, if she thinks I'm not coming because I usually don't say much and would feel pressured.)

Me: maybe, oh, okay or maybe no. It depends on whether I would never set foot in a book club or whether I was saying no because of something she then addressed. It would be normal conversation to then explain this.

 

I would interpret these kinds of come-backs not as rude, but the opposite: as someone who desired my presence making sure that I understand what the experience will actually be like, in case I'm saying no because of a misconception. I interpret that as friendly, not pushy.

 

And though I truly loathe shopping parties, I would think a friend hostessing was being genuine when she said she wanted my company but I didn't have to buy. I do understand there is a party/hostessing aspect and she doesn't want me to feel left out, or that she doesn't get how much guilt I feel for not purchasing when I don't want to! ;)

 

In your example C, the friend inviting might be thinking you are declining because you'd had previous experiences at churches where you felt like an outsider and no one spoke to you, and she's mentioning the friendliness so that you know this won't happen at this event. 

 

So much of this depends on the relationship the people have with each other, the tones of voices or body language, AND the past experiences each person brings into their interpretation of words, intent, etc. The misfire in interaction can come from either side in communication. The friend issuing the invite could be misreading the "no thanks" as coming from a different motivation than: "I would never go to a church event" and out of genuine friendliness, issue new info. She may never have experienced "pushy" churches or people and simply be explaining that the invitee would experience welcome. The church picnic might well be an essentially secular event except for a blessing over the meal. (Many church picnics are.)  The invitee may have been burned before and read "pushy" into what is meant to be "friendly." 

 

OTOH, a friendly invitee may view an invitation to a church picnic as an innocuous invitation to have some fun at the lake for the afternoon, and never have it cross her mind when she says yes that there will be preaching and a baptism in the lake. She may not have known that there could be more behind what she thought was a casual, friendly invitation.

 

I agree with the bolded 100%. I think it's key that the persons should have a closer relationship before C becomes a polite possibility. Once everyone gets to know each other, hopefully each will understand where the other is coming from and also know where to stop asking. 

[Guest]

The same is happening with my kids. We're reading and discussing the Bible and it's just strengthening their atheism.

 

 

And of course everyone who reads the exact same words in the Bible come to the exact same conclusions as to what it means. Take the examples I quoted below. There is even confusion as to what different people mean using the word "preaching" just to give one small instance of people noting having the same interpretation of the same word or words.

 

 

 

Here ya go. The word preaching is causing confusion by what people actually mean when they use it.

 

Another admission that there is always a way to twist what is being said and that this twisting will surely be done. Which is exactly what happens with interpretations of the Bible. All. the. time.

 

 

It's not just a simple, "Read the Bible and see the truth for yourself," cause those words mean lots of different things to lots of people.

 

 

Because religious beliefs are not objective. Not in the least. So multiple truths simply means that there is no way at all to "prove" that there is only ONE truth. People make statements like "my reality" and so forth as a reflection of knowing that not everyone shares that belief.

 

Yes, everyone's beliefs are just as valid as others because no one can prove his/her belief is right and no one can disprove someone else is wrong.

 

True, but this is just an internet forum... people are using words interchangeably, sure... that doesn't mean the Bible wasn't clear on that.  I actually find the Bible pretty easy to understand!

[Guest]

And, as always, which translation?

 

My son wants to read Canterbury Tales later this year. He asked for a translation rather than reading it in Middle English. That's fine...but something is lost in the translation. And that's going to be even more the case with the Bible.

 

I've compared some of the different translations and found that they pretty much say the same thing, just in different words.  If the point is still there, that is okay (for me, anyway).

[Guest]

I know I am not articulating this well and I should probably stop but I will give it one more try.

 

Regardless of what the men perceived/felt, the truth or reality of the elephant was unchanged.   The physical characteristics of the elephant had nothing to do with their beliefs about it based on what they felt and heard.   There was an elephant standing there.   

 

I believe in God.  If there is no God, I am wrong, despite my belief.  God's existence (or nonexistence) does not depend on my belief or lack of belief.   

 

Well said.  Christians are either right or wrong. 

[Guest]

I think some people are using the terms "preaching" and "proselytizing" to mean the same thing, but I don't think everyone agrees on that.  That's yet another point of confusion in this discussion, IMO.

 

Personally, I don't think they are the same thing.  To me (and I'm not speaking for others in this discussion -- just for myself) "preaching" is a congregational activity.  That is ... to prepare a lecture on a biblical topic and present it as a speech to a group of people.  It is more informational or educational in intent. 

 

"Proselytizing" is not necessarily congregational or group oriented. It can be, but doesn't have to be.  However, "proselytizing" is not a simply a lecture on a biblical topic, but rather an intentional means to try to recruit or convert someone else to one's particular religion/faith/sect/etc.  Sometimes people use the term "evangelize" in place of "proselytize."  I think mostly just Christians call it "evangelizing," though because that is the biblical word.  "Proselytizing" can come from any faith though, so I tend to use the term "proselytize" as a more general word.

 

** Just to clarify... the words I put in quotes above are simply in quotes so as to separate them as examples of terminology.

 

Okay, great.  I guess I don't do either. IRL, I'll share if someone seems interested, or answer any questions they have.  

 

I'm okay with people preaching or proselytizing if they are being respectful of others (not continuing if the person is not interested, not yelling "You are going to hell!", behaving like Westboro Baptist Church, etc).  

[Denise in Florida]

Well said.  Christians are either right or wrong. 

 

Not really, not all Christians believe the same things and of the many many things each Christian believes there are possibilities that each one could be right or wrong. 

 

If you mean the basic "God exists", even there I believe He exists and you believe He exists but we may or may not have the same idea of who/what He/She is and what that means. 

 

I love God and Christ, I read and study and the more I study the more I love God but the less I am certain I KNOW about Him. 

 

I read the Bible and discuss it with people of other denominations and no denominations at all, and we can all read the same words and see different messages revealed.  I don't believe you can say the Bible means "x".  The Bible say different things to different people, at different times in their lives that is the beauty and power of the living word. 

[Χά�ων]

Okay, great.  I guess I don't do either. IRL, I'll share if someone seems interested, or answer any questions they have.  

 

I'm okay with people preaching or proselytizing if they are being respectful of others (not continuing if the person is not interested, not yelling "You are going to hell!", behaving like Westboro Baptist Church, etc).  

 

Except the bolded is what I encounter. I usually cut off contact but that is not always possible. Those who make it to my friend circle do not act like that.

[Violet Crown]

I can see how that misreading might happen, especially in an area where Christianity is so much the norm that not wanting to go to a picnic because it's a church picnic might be unusual. You then run up against the invitee having to give theological reasons for not going, which is probably exactly where the invitee does not want to go.

 

Can you suggest a way to shut down the conversation without straying into what (to me) is the private area of personal faith and without getting really rude?

 

L

Having been on both sides of this, I've found the trick is to be as above-board as you can, and as easygoing about the other person's personal faith or lack thereof as you can.

 

So for the picnic, something like, "We often have church picnics; would you want me to let you know when another one is coming up? And if you just don't do churchy stuff, that's totally cool." This leaves space for either, "Sure, sorry we couldn't make the last one, but please let me know if another picnic comes up," or "Yes, sorry, I just don't do church activities; but do you want to get the kids together for a museum trip?" And if it's the latter response, the inviter needs to just thank the invitee for letting them know, and drop it.

 

I've been very grateful for straightforward responses like "We can't attend the event because our faith doesn't allow us to enter other houses of worship; but we'd love to come to the reception!" And I foolishly went through agonies as to how to invite an atheist friend who was a serious choral music fan to a Requiem Mass featuring a professional schola; but finally I just said, "I know you don't do church, but we've got a Faure Requiem scheduled for November, and it should be awesome, if you'd like to go." (She brought a date, and a good time was had by all.)

 

Unfortunately, I've found that my own inability to attend worship services not of my faith has been met by hurt feelings and even anger and argument more often than not; so I don't always practice the straightforwardness that I preach.

[Guest]

Not really, not all Christians believe the same things and of the many many things each Christian believes there are possibilities that each one could be right or wrong. 

 

If you mean the basic "God exists", even there I believe He exists and you believe He exists but we may or may not have the same idea of who/what He/She is and what that means. 

 

I love God and Christ, I read and study and the more I study the more I love God but the less I am certain I KNOW about Him. 

 

I read the Bible and discuss it with people of other denominations and no denominations at all, and we can all read the same words and see different messages revealed.  I don't believe you can say the Bible means "x".  The Bible say different things to different people, at different times in their lives that is the beauty and power of the living word. 

 

 

I just meant the basics of Christianity.  Sorry for not clarifying.  I have a little one, so I type my replies quickly!  :P

[Mergath]

I know I am not articulating this well and I should probably stop but I will give it one more try.

 

Regardless of what the men perceived/felt, the truth or reality of the elephant was unchanged.   The physical characteristics of the elephant had nothing to do with their beliefs about it based on what they felt and heard.   There was an elephant standing there.   

 

I believe in God.  If there is no God, I am wrong, despite my belief.  God's existence (or nonexistence) does not depend on my belief or lack of belief.   

 

I think you missed the point, or perhaps the nuance, of that story. ;)

 

Reality is always subjective, right on down to the sub-atomic level.  We can all be accurate in our perceptions of whatever part of the elephant (or God) we happen upon.  While my perceptions may differ, that doesn't invalidate yours.  We've each happened upon a different part of the elephant, but neither of us are able to see the whole.    

 

How small your God must be, bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  My understanding of the Divine is much broader.