feels morally obligated to disabuse them of their superstition?
2006-09-22 06:22:42 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Don't base your opinions about any religion from the crazies on this site.
Praise the sweet name of JR "Bob" Dobbs!
2006-09-22 06:24:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well it depends what you mean by "evangelize." Evangil is simply Greek for "good news." If I live my life as though it indeed is "good news", thats really all the evangelizing I need to do. I don't ever try and "sell" anyone on Christianity, or re-educate them. I simply try to reflect the best of what being a Christian is in what I do, and how I treat people.
So in that respect, no, I suppose I don't understand you. Since I don't ever try to talk anyone into religion, I really don't get why you or anyone feels the need to try and compel others into likeminded belief. But since I don't do it, I guess that is why I don't grasp it either. :-)
2006-09-22 13:29:09 · answer #2 · answered by evolver 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One. What Christians feel morally obligated to evangelize?
What superstition are you speaking of.
What is disabuse?
2006-09-22 13:27:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I can only speak for myself -- I'm a christian who feels obligated to evangelize; and I have a hard time understanding atheists. Can't say that I have fully weighed atheists arguments -- because I've never fully understood their position. I'd like to understand... especially since I think atheists have incredible faith (by believing that existence itself came from nothing).
2006-09-22 13:31:01 · answer #4 · answered by I'm Just Sayin' 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand the atheist who "feels" morally obligated, but I also understand that the atheist does not know where his morals come from. Therefore I am morally obligated to tell him.
That is, the atheist has no humility, and believes his moral sense is something he came up with on his own. Selecting to exalt himself instead of honoring his Father in heaven who gave him that in him which is good.
It is not that I don't understand the atheist. It is that the atheist is vain and incorrect.
2006-09-22 13:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by Gestalt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be a mutual respect.
If the Atheist declines the evangelism, the Christian should acknowledge that and move on WITHOUT any snide comments.
The atheist should decline the Evangelism WITHOUT any snide comments and let the Christian move on.
This rarely occurs.
2006-09-22 13:25:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Atheists don't feel a moral obligation to do anything. That's the antithesis of atheism. "Moral" obligations are indicative of feeling that there is inherently "good" and "evil" in this world. And that is irrational if one believes that life is simply a random chemical reaction.
2006-09-22 13:27:50 · answer #7 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That seems like a paradox to me because the purpose of an athiest is to not have belief in a God. For example you can always attempt to give proof that something is there, but how do you give proof that something isn't there? Show nothing?
2006-09-22 13:25:57 · answer #8 · answered by mojo2093@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with that is that ppl who do talk to atheists about God , KNOWS FOR A FACT THERE IS ONE. i KNOW for a fact there is a God.
How do i know?
Miracles have been performed in my life that only God could have done
and given a chance to read the bible and open your heart to God will give u a chance to know him and when u get to know him there will be no way u could deny His existance
2006-09-22 13:35:33 · answer #9 · answered by kingkong9274 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok it is a two part question
I don't think christians evangelising continuously to people who disbelieve is constructive. Their belief is their choice.
However the same argument goes to atheists who argue their 'beliefs', they can be as evangelical or proselytising as the most avid christians.
2006-09-22 13:29:02 · answer #10 · answered by angle_of_deat_69 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋