Philosophy Now Forum

It did used to be didn't it? You would expect it to, wouldn't you? After all, if Christians take Christ at his word when he says, "No one comes to the father except through me", if they believe "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life", is it not desperately important for the faithful to spread the good news? Yet door knockers and street preachers are considered fringe elements and international missionaries still cause embarassment due to historical associations with imperialism. Are Christians less concerned with saving souls than they used to be, or does their faith lack the confidence it once exuded?

I think with respect to the Catholic Church this may be about to change.

Militant theist religion looks to be back on the rise. Ironic given they all believe in the same 'God'.

Still, when its all over this time maybe we'll finely have done with it.

Arising_uk wrote:Ironic given they all believe in the same 'God'.

But do they? If God is an abstract concept made concrete in people's lives by religion, then perhaps there are as many Gods as religions, or even as many Gods as people with religion. In any case, Christians believe - or used to believe - that Christ is necessary for people to be reconciled to God. Certainly, the animism, totenism and polytheism practised in some parts of the world concieve divinity in a different way to Christians.

Jesus did not knock on people´s doors like Jehova´s witnesses.
He waited for people to come to him on their own and to find out on their own if they wanted to follow him.
He did not put anyone under pressure.

duszek wrote:Jesus did not knock on people´s doors like Jehova´s witnesses.
He waited for people to come to him on their own and to find out on their own if they wanted to follow him.
He did not put anyone under pressure.

Doesn't that put someone living in an animist tribe in the middle of a rainforest at something of a disadvantage? Not only would they not be under any pressure to follow Jesus, they would never even get to hear of him unless an evangelist came along.

It amazes me that the critics here (and in general) seem oblivious to the fact that the Catechism addresses this issue, and in great depth.

It's shouldn't be too surprising, though -- when Pope Francis acknowledged the need for the Church to avail itself in the "Blood of Christ," the armchair experts in the comments section acted like he was speaking some alien language.

And they accuse religious people of living in ignorance?

An honest person ought to be able to argue both sides of a debate.

The militiant atheists today are no different than the Republican voters who vote against Obama because the GOP uses big scary words like "socialism" and "communism."

How many of those Republican voters honestly know what communism or socialism is?

How many people who attack Christianity* actually know what it is?



*Protestantism is not historic Christianity.

duszek wrote:Jesus did not knock on people´s doors like Jehova´s witnesses.
He waited for people to come to him on their own and to find out on their own if they wanted to follow him.
He did not put anyone under pressure.

Come with me and be fishers of men.

Kamalayka wrote:It amazes me that the critics here (and in general) seem oblivious to the fact that the Catechism addresses this issue, and in great depth.

It's shouldn't be too surprising, though -- when Pope Francis acknowledged the need for the Church to avail itself in the "Blood of Christ," the armchair experts in the comments section acted like he was speaking some alien language.

And they accuse religious people of living in ignorance?

An honest person ought to be able to argue both sides of a debate.

So far you've not actually said anything about the topic of this thread?

The militiant atheists today are no different than the Republican voters who vote against Obama because the GOP uses big scary words like "socialism" and "communism."

How many of those Republican voters honestly know what communism or socialism is?

How many people who attack Christianity* actually know what it is?

What has this to do with the thread topic?

But on this matter, how many Christians actually know what Atheism is but appear to attack it all the same. What the hell is a 'militant atheist'? Do they want to burn unbelievers at the stake?

*Protestantism is not historic Christianity.

So what?

Historic Christianity has the Borgias as the Catholic Pope, shall we bring them back?

Dunce wrote:It did used to be didn't it? You would expect it to, wouldn't you? After all, if Christians take Christ at his word when he says, "No one comes to the father except through me", if they believe "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life", is it not desperately important for the faithful to spread the good news? Yet door knockers and street preachers are considered fringe elements and international missionaries still cause embarassment due to historical associations with imperialism. Are Christians less concerned with saving souls than they used to be, or does their faith lack the confidence it once exuded?

The problem is not with preaching. Preaching just seems dogmatic since truth is not completely objective, and there is always problems with systems since the opposite is always true when someone makes a system. The problem is everyone's ethics seems to suck.

duszek wrote:Jesus did not knock on people´s doors like Jehova´s witnesses.
He waited for people to come to him on their own and to find out on their own if they wanted to follow him.
He did not put anyone under pressure.

You know, he sounds a lot like Bob the Baptist.

How many apostles you got now then?

Getting a bit above yourself aren't you? For the baptist that is.

I really think you should consider that you may be the anti-baptist with all that involves.

Arising_uk wrote: How many apostles you got now then?

Getting a bit above yourself aren't you? For the baptist that is.

I really think you should consider that you may be the anti-baptist with all that involves.

I don't have any apostles yet, but then, Rome, Babylon and Cincinnati weren't built in a day, either.

If you think someone is in danger of stepping on a land mine, are you morally obliged to tell them?

Immanuel Can wrote:If you think someone is in danger of stepping on a land mine, are you morally obliged to tell them?

Depends if they're the ones you planted the mine for?

Ooh. Nasty!

You get my point, of course. If you were a member of a prostelytizing group...let's say a Jehovah's Witness or a Muslim or whatever...some kind of religion that believed that people who did not know some fact were in some danger...like say, oblivion or eternal fire...would it be surprising if you felt fairly urgently obliged to share that information with others?

In fact, could you be anything we would want to call a "good person" and do otherwise?

We could contest your facts, of course...but we would have no reason to think you weren't acting on a moral imperative, given your beliefs. In fact, we would take that imperative seriously ourselves, if we are good people. We might act on different assumptions, but we certainly would not impugn your motives, your moral earnestness or the moral reasoning you were using.