• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evangelism as a means of authentication: An atheistic view of the psychology behind faith

pearl

Well-Known Member
Who taught you this? This isn't what the Catholic Church teaches.

I don't think you have any idea what the Church teaches.

Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, “since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes, n. 22).
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I don't think you have any idea what the Church teaches.

Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, “since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes, n. 22).

That doesn't back what you said. That simply says that all can be saved.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Correct, Pope Francis is not a real Christian. He is false apostle masquerading as a Christian. He twists scripture to serve his worldly goals.
I see it as being 100% opposite. The twisting of scripture is being done by conservatives who back the sinner in chief to accomplish worldly aims - for Christians Matt 7:21.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Thanks for your reply.

My post (as cited) was concerning Anglican Christianity rather than Catholicism. My understanding is that in the Anglican faith, ascent to Heaven is purely dependent on your faith in Christianity, and all non-believers will go to hell. My post addresses those who subscribe to this belief. (rather than the pope of Catholicism which says that non-believers can be given access to heaven through good deeds)
Since very few Christians subscribe to this exclusion-by-dogma ideal, as compared the the majority of Christians that do not, by what reasoning are you defining them authentically 'Christian', and then questioning the authenticity of the others?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
It does not say anyone can be saved without faith in Christ, which is what you said.

that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ,
even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.

You are probably also unaware that the Church teaches that the Jews are saved in their own covenant.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Humanity has been plagued by an inescapable lack of meaning since its inception. When faced with such overwhelming lack of direction, we have sought to construct understandings of reality to explain and provide purpose to our lives, and as an extension, human existence.

Everything we hold important in society is given meaning purely because humans choose to give it meaning. Sports, arts, beauty, wealth, popularity, accomplishment, philosophy, morality ... the list is endless. And we, as humans, flock to these constructs and make new ones, creating an endless cycle of constructed meaning that ultimately defines our existence. Now, I am as guilty as anyone in this, and I don’t necessarily think it’s a detrimental behaviour. For civilization is built upon such constructs, and without them, life would be utterly empty. But an understanding of humanity’s proclivity to create meaning as a resolution to pervading meaningless can give us an insight into the psychology behind religion – perhaps the greatest meaning-providing construct of all time.

Indeed, religion directly provides an explanation for existence, with a clear path to follow through it and a neat resolution to tie off the bow. As such, religion is the perfect answer to humanity’s universal struggle to find direction and meaning. By answering questions of existence with an intangible and unreachable divine power, religion provides a world of unending rules, purpose and comfort.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s use Anglican Christianity as an example (Although this reasoning can be applied in various forms to most religions). By following the teachings of the Bible and devoting oneself to the worship of the omnipotent God, Christians are able to transcend our lowly reality and ascend to a perfect afterlife for eternity. An individual who fails to do so will ultimately descend to hell, to undergo eternal suffering instead.

Lets assume that this actually happens and will happen to all of us upon the day of reckoning. If Christians alone hold the secret to eternal life and evading eternal suffering, would it not be the life goal of each and every Christian to convert non-Christians to their faith and thus grant them salvation? If Christians truly believe that their non-Christian friends and family are heading directly for the eternal gates of hell, would they not do everything in their power to reach out their divine hand and pluck them from the fiery depths, thereby elevating them to a life of never ending perfection?

Because if Christianity is correct, then Christians are sitting in their holy life raft while non-Christians are unknowingly drowning in undying misery. Because if Christianity is correct, then Christians are going through life watching their fellow humans slowly succumb to eternal suffering

Now, if a Christian truly believed in their faith, they undeniably should do everything in their power to evangelise all those they care about and as much of humanity as they can. In fact, worldly pursuits such as education, wealth and family all pale in the face of the great eternal dichotomy and equaliser – nirvana or despair. Because 80 years on a flawed earth is less than a blink of an eye in comparison to eternity. Should truly faithful Christians not then devote themselves to this higher humanitarian cause at the cost of all else? This cause that outweighs everything in significance, value and practicality? And if they do not, are they merely selfish? Or evil? Or, more likely, do they not truly believe the teachings they devote themselves to?

Within all this, the only logical answer is for an authentic Christian to fervently pursue a life of evangelism. And for those who do, I have the utmost respect. For they are practicing their beliefs with full conviction and authenticity.

For the majority of Christians who don’t, I can only conclude that deep down, they have doubt about the veracity of their faith. That they cannot holistically believe the words of the bible they so vehemently recite and follow. That when it comes down to it, they know there is no afterlife, no divine salvation. That, like everyone else, they merely use their respective construct as a neat resolution to the inescapable meaningless that has plagued humanity since its inception. An expedient source of comfort, direction and purpose.

As such, if you’re a Christian who is solely dedicated to a life of evangelism, I applaud you.

If you’re a Christian who doesn’t, like most, then are you really a Christian at all?

Thoughts?
Is the post somehow magically Independent from the Wasteland? This is a rather Ironic projection of modernity onto history cute!! Sounds like a bored child.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ,
even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.

You are probably also unaware that the Church teaches that the Jews are saved in their own covenant.

I am well aware of what the Bible teaches and that's what I agree with.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
[
I always find this amusing. The very Scripture referred to was determined to be Holy Scripture by the Church.

They have to have something to twist...Where would Satan have been without the word of God to twist and deceive poor Eve?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I see it as being 100% opposite. The twisting of scripture is being done by conservatives who back the sinner in chief to accomplish worldly aims - for Christians Matt 7:21.

Another year of Obama and there would be transgender bathrooms in elementary schools....
 
Since very few Christians subscribe to this exclusion-by-dogma ideal, as compared the the majority of Christians that do not, by what reasoning are you defining them authentically 'Christian', and then questioning the authenticity of the others?

Do I really have to repeat myself? My post is solely addressing the individuals who believe in the dichotomy of heaven and hell for christians and non-christians respectively. Wait I'll say it one more time so you can hopefully understand. My post is solely addressing the individuals who believe in the dichotomy of heaven and hell for christians and non-christians respectively.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I don't see how John 3:16-18 can be seen any way but exactly how it reads:

16For 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. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
 
Is the post somehow magically Independent from the Wasteland? This is a rather Ironic projection of modernity onto history cute!! Sounds like a bored child.

You'd have to clarify what you mean by the 'wasteland'. Also, it seems as though you haven't at all engaged with the actual point of the post but have merely focused on the opening 150 words. Perhaps one could present an alternate viewpoint to the arguments discussed rather than resort to immature condescension? Sounds like an arrogant man.
 
The most powerful form of evangalism is doing good. So if a Christian lives a Godly life he is a walking evangelist. Good friend, faithful husband etc.

So by living a good life you are role modelling Christianity in the hope others will join you? I have also heard this response (from Glen Davies, the archbishop of the Anglican Diocese in Sydney).

However, it seems a bit insufficient to merely hope that people will become Christian from observing your actions? Especially when eternal perfection / suffering is on the line. It is hard to comprehend this reasoning from a moralistic viewpoint.

Also, there are plenty of non-Christians who live good 'Christian' lives by your definition. For an observer of both Christian and non-Christian 'good people', why would anyone therefore become a Christian when the only common denominator is that both people are good? Leading a good life and being Christian are in no way dependent on each other.

This response seems to be a cop-out from the teachings of the Anglican Church. And if not questioning the authenticity of your faith, I'd have to conclude you do not care enough about non-Christians to at least attempt to give them a chance at eternal salvation.
 
Last edited:

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So by living a good life you are role modelling Christianity in the hope others will join you? I have also heard this response (from Glen Davies, the archbishop of the Anglican Diocese in Sydney).

However, it seems a bit insufficient to merely hope that people will become Christian from observing your actions? Especially when eternal perfection / suffering is on the line. It is hard to comprehend this reasoning from a moralistic viewpoint.

Also, there are plenty of non-Christians who live good 'Christian' lives by your definition. For an observer of both Christian and non-Christian 'good people', why would anyone therefore become a Christian when the only common denominator is that both people are good? Leading a good life and being Christian are in no way dependent on each other.

This response seems to be a cop-out from the teachings of the Anglican Church. And if not questioning the authenticity of your faith, I'd have to conclude you do not care enough about non-Christians to at least attempt to give them a chance at eternal salvation.

I think you have deluded ideas, or you were born to be a JW. Join them and show us how it's done.
 
I think you have deluded ideas, or you were born to be a JW. Join them and show us how it's done.

So the deluded one is not the guy who believes there is an omnipotent, invisible being watching over you with an empty seat at the table of eternal life for you and your Christian buddies?

That was a fairly disappointing defence to your faith though, Kemoslosby. Perhaps logic has stumped your philosophy? Is that why no counter-points were made to my thoughtful reply?

I certainly wouldn't become Christian from this weak exampled of evangelistic living. Isn't this your chance to give me eternal salvation? Enlighten me with your reasoning and perhaps I will join you at the eternal table one day. The alternative is hell. Up to you I guess.

Then again there really isn't any logic to back up your ideals, and that's the reason I have received no rebuttal from you. For you merely stand upon the principle of faith. Much like any other fictional book. Maybe you were born to believe in fairytales.
 
Top