Lity makes sense to me.
Shotgun, I cannot relate to your idea.
For one, I’m a none believer but I’m not seething against any god. I don’t mind people telling me about their version of any spiritual text or faith.
What I do mind is any person pushing emotionally upon my person. For instance, Dawkins would annoy the crap out of me.
Second, are you saying that you see it that Christians should just endlessly preach even when it is clear that their actions are bringing harm to their own words?
@ Waffling Shotgun. For the most part, “meh.”
But, “perishing?” 
And I just though it was a migraine…
Hey Jayson,
If I were to callapse your response into a simple set of propositions, it may look something like this:
1: I disagree with Christian theology
2: I have negative emotional reactions when someone “pushes emotionally upon your person.”
and,
3: You ask me to clarify a Christian view of evangelism.
In the interest of staying consistent with my previous observations, I’d like to leave 1 and 3 alone and focus on 2. (If you’re interested in a Christian view of evangelism, I’d love to discuss it in another thread. In this thread, I’m just concerned with highlighting Trevor’s inconsistency.)
Taking 2 into consideration:
Suppose the only way to stop someone from “pushing emotionally upon your person” is to push emotionally upon their person?
Are you against “pushing emotionally upon persons” in general? As in: Do you believe in some transcendent, objective ethic in the universe that teaches: “pushing emotionally upon persons” is a moral evil?
Or is it just a personal disposition on your part? You just happen not to like it?
If you hold to the latter, then logically it can be discarded…essentially, the commentator would have to say: “Who cares?”
The law allows Christians to speak where they want, despite the fact that Jayson has negative emotional dispositions as a result.
If you agree with the former, then you may be able to rationally support a statement against “pushing emotionally upon persons.”
Hope that helps.
Shotgun,
You actually did not answer the direct question.
It’s not a question of law that I asked.
I asked if you are saying that you see it that Christians should just endlessly preach even when it is clear that their actions are bringing harm to their own words?
You can address Trevor’s logic, but it doesn’t change the core point.
You are focusing on showing how illogical his presentation is as if his logic is the point itself.
The bottom line is that Trevor became frustrated with given representatives of religious adherence’s and felt that it was frustratingly invasive.
Given that the thread started with rules being offended, I (the moderator) am steering it back on course to the basic fundamental component of Trevor’s issue: evangelism; specifically, when is it too much?
Now, rather than answering my question, you instead switched angles and decided to discuss what my position is regarding emotional aggravation upon another person.
It really doesn’t matter.
Even if I were a person that was like Ricky Gervais and generally just enjoyed infuriating people; that’s not the question at hand.
The question at hand was whether or not doing so is good to do in evangelism of one’s religion or spirituality?
It’s not a question of who is the contradicting person.
The question doesn’t relate to a person.
It is a question regarding what is good for one’s own presentation of one’s own religion or spirituality when discussing with a person that does not hold the same.
Directly, as stated four ways before this, is it good for one’s own religious or spiritual belief’s representation to verbally abuse people in pursuit of gaining them to one’s own belief?
This also is not confined to Christianity.
This stands for all beliefs that revolve around religion and spirituality.
Trevor was pretty clear on broadly covering the turf of all religious enthusiasts that aggressively evangelize.
Now, in case you really just can’t stop focusing on Trevor’s logic.
What is illogical about asking when people that aggressively evangelize will stop and respect a persons right to their self?
It’s not a logical flaw to post here on such a matter because this is a forum and that is what this place is for; discussion.
That is different from a person that will not leave your presence at your request when their presence was unsolicited by you.
That is quite like stating that it is illogical for a recipient of sexual harassment to speak out and ask when sexual harassment will end when in the company of a general discussion forum on sexuality.
Jayson, I’m afraid that before we can move on, you HAVE to publicly recognize that the following state is self-refuting:
“an evangelist against evangelists.”
Or, for another example:
“a law outlawing all laws.”
Once you admit that the above two states are self-refuting, then we can move on to demonstrate the following:
Necessarily…public assertions of any given moral positions, are public assertions of given moral positions.
(The logical law of Identity, IE: A is A) This is tautological.
Public assertion (A) differs in content from public assertion (B), but they are both public assertions.
Everyone following? I’ve said nothing controversial so far.
So, we can let (A) stand for Trevor’s public assertion (or, for the sake of discussion, we can let A stand for Jayson’s assertion that some Christian evangelist “harm” their own message by “pushing themselves emotionally on people” and this is undesirable in an objective sense).
We can let (B) stand for the position of the Christian evangelist: that it is desirable to “push themselves emotionally on people.”
Keep in mind, again, that both (A) and (B) are public assertions.
The contradiction (inherent in the state of an: “evangelist against evangelists”) arises when someone “pushes (A) emotionally on people.”
When so applied, (A) becomes self-refuting and is really more similar in content to (B).
The objection will be raised that (A) does not violate some arbitrary standard of what it means to “push emotionally on people.”
The arbitrary standard is construed such that, (A) is never in violation of “pushing emotionally on people” where as (B) is almost constantly in violation of it.
In which case, I repeat the observation I made in my last post: The commentator simply has to ask…“Who cares about that arbitrary standard?”
Where did this standard come from? Is it an objective standard in the universe that transcends all times, places and people?
Or is it just an arbitrarily asserted emotional disposition on behalf of those who hold to (A)?
If the former, then it may have some basis of legitimacy if its objective credentials can be verified.
If the latter…then who cares?
First, you still did not answer the question.
And in the question that I asked, it does not matter what contradictions could be occurring outside of the question.
I asked if you are saying that you see it that Christians should just endlessly preach even when it is clear that their actions are bringing harm to their own words?
I asked this after you wrote:
In general…
The question at hand was whether or not doing so is good to do in evangelism of one’s religion or spirituality?
It is a question regarding what is good for one’s own presentation of one’s own religion or spirituality when discussing with a person that does not hold the same.
Directly, is it good for one’s own religious or spiritual belief’s representation to verbally abuse people in pursuit of gaining them to one’s own belief?
You have not answered any version of this question.
Second, your proposition is a distraction as it is not applicable.
It is not an evangelist against evangelist’s.
Nor is it a law against a law.
It is, however, like a recipient of sexual harassment asking when sexual harassment will end when in the company of a general discussion forum on sexuality.
Third, even if it were evangelist against evangelist, or law against law.
These are not illogical propositions.
Because the questions are:
The question at hand was whether or not doing so is good to do in evangelism of one’s religion or spirituality?
It is a question regarding what is good for one’s own presentation of one’s own religion or spirituality when discussing with a person that does not hold the same.
Directly, is it good for one’s own religious or spiritual belief’s representation to verbally abuse people in pursuit of gaining them to one’s own belief?
And in such a case, the evangelist against evangelist’s is only in contradiction if that same evangelist against evangelist’s aggressively refuses to leave at the request of the recipient parties in an environment where the evangelist against evangelist’s was not first solicited.
And in the case of a Law against the Law; we have those.
They exist for good reason.
For instance, we have a law against making laws that prohibit you from believing in your god.
I dunno. Can you stop people from selling products at me?
I mean, just walk by these people. I find No thank you works if I am forced to say anything to people who approach me on the street for whatever reason.
And really? you’ve had a number of people yapping at you on the street about God the Mother? Really?
How did they manage to impose their beliefs on you?
I mean when the IMF tells a country it cannot make certain democratic decisions regarding their social system - for example - this is imposing beliefs.
Police can impose the beliefs that are embodied in laws.
Courts also.
How did these people impose their beliefs? They can impose themselves. They can get in your space. But if they actually try to impose their beliefs on you, generally speaking you can take them to court.
No it was a good question. I have never had more than scattered experiences like this. I’ve mostly lived in larger cities in the US or way out in the boonies with smaller towns at most. At no point was this a significant problem.
I am quite sure most of the women I know have had many many more sexual suggestions rudely tossed at them than I have coversion attempts.
Let me be very precise here:
If there is a law against all laws, then that law is, itself, negated.
Do you see how it is inherently self-defeating? It is impossible.
The same is true (by way of another example) of someone who is an evangelist against all evangelists.
It’s like arguing with someone that you’re not arguing…or telling someone that you’re not talking to them…or suggesting that you not take suggestions from others!
These positions are inherently self-defeating.
So, Trevor can complain about Christian evangelists if he likes, but he cannot do so because of the content of their message, since he is promoting his own message.
(That neither you or Trevor seem to acknowledge your own bleief system as ‘religious’ and thus, subject to the same criticism as Christian evangelists, is something that must be dealt with elsewhere.)
The reason I don’t answer your question is because it’s predicated on biased presuppositions (as pointed out above.) If we’re going to “evangelize” against evangelists, then we need to include ourselves in the criticism.
It’s the same fallacy that many modern, pc college grads like to use these days concerning “tolerance.”
They want to be tolerant of all views except intolerance…in which case, they’re really not tolerating all views at all.
What’s going on Jayson, is you’re trying to hold me accountable to your arbitrary moral standard. Let me highlight this using the sexual harrasment illustration:
If someone, in a forum on sexuality, suggests that sexual harrassment must end, they must provide a convincing reason why. They cannot simply expect the sexual harrassers in the forum to accept that their chosen lifestyle must end. Why should they?
In the same way, when you claim that there is “obvious harm” being done to a given position…you must prove what “harm” is and why it applies to the case under discussion.
…in that situation, simply feeling upset because one doesn’t like getting told one is going to Hell, will not withstand scrutiny.
At anyrate…
Jayson, you can focus on whatever part of the conversation you like…my goal was to show everyone that Trevor’s original post was logically inconsistent since he is guilty of the very thing he accuses the Christian evangelists of.
I’ve shown that much and maybe he (and anyone else tempted to cry foul, and feign dismay at this sort of thing) will think twice before arguing fallaciously in the future.
It is a logical fallacy to think all are one way because a particular number is, or because those you know are…That is the same fallacy that bred Racism.
Yes Shotgun seems right, I would add that non-evangelism, is impossible, if you believe in something that effects who you are, and thus effects others, and is constantly coming out in various levels of directness…
It might be better to suggest one to not be “pushy”.
Shotgun,
First, Trevor did not address only Christians.
He specifically mentioned “God the mother, and God the father, and a million other inanities”, and addressed the topic to, “the Religionists”.
This means that he is not after you and your religious family, or any concept of the caliber, but instead to the entire religious family of humanity.
Second, you assumed that I don’t acknowledge my own belief system as religious, but never asked.
I do acknowledge my own belief system, not exactly as religious due to semantic reasons of classification of action, but, as spiritual.
I’m not even sure if you know what my belief system is actually.
The only thing I’ve stated to you is that I am a non believer of Christianity. However, you have been absent for a time and may have missed the various instances where my spiritual beliefs are conveyed.
So addressing me with an inherited assumption of familial faith absolute denialist’s is not really needed.
I am of no such affiliation, nor contest.
Third, I have not presented a moral standard to which I then now hold you accountable for.
What I have presented was a question. That question is open to everyone, as well as yourself.
You specifically stated a comment that I wanted more clarification on, and so asked a question that related directly to the primary tangent of the thread: when does evangelism go too far? Does it ever go too far?
The only thing I’ve mentioned about my personal preferences was regarding human behavior in general; that I do not appreciate extreme emotional impressiveness from other people when I haven’t the same emotional investment in the subject matter at hand, and that I do not especially appreciate such being accomplished through negative discourse in diminutive superior opinion assuming an entitled right of the conveyor to place their existential moral weight upon me as if that is my moral weight inherently by being proxy to their person.
I have also stated that it does not depend on the religious standing of the person for me to be offended by such behavior; by way of example, I presented an Atheist, Richard Dawkins, that accomplishes exactly this behavior in his discourses on religion.
He thinks so little of religion, while I think so greatly of it.
I hold the same regarding animal activist’s, environmental activist’s, political activist’s, over zealous salesmen who value high price over an interest in what I need, or simply the coworker that won’t stop talking emphatically about Minecraft or World of Warcraft when I’ve made it clear that I don’t really have any interest in the subject.
Fourth, Trevor wasn’t addressing all evangelizing and this is why the comparison to an evangelist against all evangelist’s and a law against all laws are not apt.
Trevor was addressing the religious community regard the religious communities sub-community of individuals that are evangelizing post declaration of cessation from the recipient.
This is made clear by the opening sentence where Trevor wrote:
That indicates clearly that the discussion is regarding a selection of the religious community which those addressed, “the Religionist’s”, are asked a question regarding how to stop a sub-demographic of the religious population.
So the address is to all of the religious community for advice on how to cease a sub-community of the religious community that is overly zealous with their evangelism to the point that this sub-demographic does not cease their emotional impressiveness post declaration of cessation from the recipient.
This is essentially equal to sexual harassment in that a condition is taking place where unsolicited offensive behavior is being received by a recipient.
This is because if this were a sexual harassment case, Trevor is not demanding that all sexual behaviors cease, but asking for how to stop unwanted sexual advances upon their person post declaration of cessation by Trevor.
Fifth, therefore, the question that has been asked is exactly the point at hand.
What is the point that determines when evangelism becomes evangelism harassment?
Is there such a thing as evangelism harassment?
Sixth, you wrote:
To which, considering the fifth statement, I have asked you:
And the reason for stating that their actions are bringing harm to their own words is that in such cases where the recipient has overtly made it clear that they wish the evangelist cease their proselytizing, continued proselytizing will most likely cause the recipient to withdraw and not be swayed to the evangelist’s belief out of having the representation of the faith being one of negative experience.
So I was asking if you thought that there was never a time which cessation should take place under any circumstance, even if the actions are reducing the chance of conversion.
I would like to add that what I had imparted here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=175900#p2233859
May not reflect in entirety or part and parcel in which Jesus would like for Christians to proceed. This is what I feel in my heart and is totally of my own opinion.