Evangelism?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » Evangelism?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 05:01 pm
What is evangelism? I'm sorry for asking this blatant question, but the dictionary did not give me sufficient answers. Please do not refrain from explaining in long, thorough paragraphs.

Very Happy
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 12:54 am
@Hi My Name Is,
Trying to sell your theological beliefs.
 
mike90t09
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:41 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
On to those who do not share the same beliefs
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:01 pm
@mike90t09,
or for those less cynical and bitter. Evangelism is the expression of a belief that one considers beneficial to humanity as a whole with the aim of giving opportunity for people to learn them and adopt them. Religions are not the only ones who do this. Governments, Clubs, Gangs, Charities, Science Labs, Companies etc... all do this. The key difference between evangelism and advertising is that evangelists believe in their cause fervently.

To distill it as " a bunch of religious wackos force feeding you their dogmatic pablum" is a discredit to the actual constructive conversation that could be had about the OP. It casts a group of people who are no more guilty about "cynical evangelism" than any other single person with a deeply held belief as snake oil salespeople and charlatans. And since I am preaching here, it also shows a serious lack of forethought and courtesy from the people who do it. The OP was asking a serious question in real way and deservs a serious and real answer.
 
Derek M
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 05:54 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
I take it to consist in trying to promote a metaphysical belief the promoter is unwilling to ever give up. These beliefs are usually held for normative reasons: the individual cannot imagine living happily without holding said belief. As a consequence, evangelism and philosophy really don't mix, as critical thinking is essential to philosophical thought, and evangelists aren't critical of the set of beliefs they wish to promote.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:00 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141360 wrote:
I take it to consist in trying to sell a metaphysical belief that the evangelist is unwilling to ever give up. These beliefs are usually held for normative reasons: the individual cannot imagine living happily without holding said belief. As a consequence, evangelism and philosophy really don't mix, as critical thinking is essential to philosophical thought, and evangelists aren't critical of the set of beliefs they wish to promote.


Philosophy at its roots is the same thing as evangelism, the dogmatic adherence to the "critical thinking", "rational thought", "question everything" is never questioned and then adopted wholesale within the philosopher as bedrock for their cognitive equilibrium, which makes them happy. And in most cases the philosopher is not happy to just keep it to him/herself they go and spread it and discuss it and attempt to convince others that their dogmatic beliefs are good for the other and for humanity.
 
Derek M
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:08 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
GoshisDead wrote:
Philosophy at its roots is the same thing as evangelism, the dogmatic adherence to the "critical thinking", "rational thought", "question everything" is never questioned and then adopted wholesale within the philosopher as bedrock for their cognitive equilibrium, which makes them happy. And in most cases the philosopher is not happy to just keep it to him/herself they go and spread it and discuss it and attempt to convince others that their dogmatic beliefs are good for the other and for humanity.


I disagree. I've often questioned philosophy and whether it has any value. In fact, philosophy is routinely challenged by philosophers. Consider Wittgenstein, for example.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:25 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
Hi! My Name Is:;120019 wrote:
What is evangelism? I'm sorry for asking this blatant question, but the dictionary did not give me sufficient answers. Please do not refrain from explaining in long, thorough paragraphs.

Very Happy



Evangelism is the spreading of the cristian gospe often with arms. Muslims, Communists, Capitalists, Republicans & Democrates they all do the same.

PSH:sarcastic::sarcastic:
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 02:10 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;141370 wrote:
Evangelism is the spreading of the cristian gospe often with arms. Muslims, Communists, Capitalists, Republicans & Democrates they all do the same.

PSH:sarcastic::sarcastic:


Fiend Pseudo-sto; U are worse than a donkey. It is un-certain if I have a handicap for U. Seeing this is an US regulated Forum i'll see what I legally can do. May-be one of Philadelphia's best laywers would take this case.

U pissed me of. I promise U damages if U keep being abusive. My Health is private. It is not in Public Profile. You trailed me, bastard. 3 point, I am aware...

Troll-eye may reach U.

PSH:a-thought:
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 03:01 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141366 wrote:
I disagree. I've often questioned philosophy and whether it has any value. In fact, philosophy is routinely challenged by philosophers. Consider Wittgenstein, for example.


They have challenged them by replacing other dogmatic axioms in their place then writing as if theirs were the only truth. The nature of the search fro truth is the assumption of the dogmatic axiom and its memetic transmission.
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:26 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;141364 wrote:
Philosophy at its roots is the same thing as evangelism, the dogmatic adherence to the "critical thinking", "rational thought", "question everything" is never questioned and then adopted wholesale within the philosopher as bedrock for their cognitive equilibrium, which makes them happy. And in most cases the philosopher is not happy to just keep it to him/herself they go and spread it and discuss it and attempt to convince others that their dogmatic beliefs are good for the other and for humanity.


Wouldn't questioning the act of questioning just be further questioning?

If a philosopher, or an evangelist of religion, really thought either compass was misleading, they would stop using it - not use it to examine it. Am I wrong?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:36 am
@bmcreider,
BCM rationally you are not wrong, behaviorally you are. In an optimal world where people used optimal rationality people would examine that with which they initiially disagree. In real life, however, how often does it happen? Especially with deeply held ideological beliefs. It does not happen often unless one somehow becomes disatified with their current beliefs.
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:46 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;152848 wrote:
BCM rationally you are not wrong, behaviorally you are. In an optimal world where people used optimal rationality people would examine that with which they initiially disagree. In real life, however, how often does it happen? Especially with deeply held ideological beliefs. It does not happen often unless one somehow becomes disatified with their current beliefs.


Well, that rationality is something that you would think to instill prior to any beliefs, which without rationality, are based on emotion.

To evangelize, even if we all do it to some extent, is hypocrisy in some fashion, IMHO. Would you want your kid evangelized to by the following modern examples:

-Cults
-Military Recruiters
-Salesman
-Political campaigns
-Cable News
-Advertising
-Few Christians, some other religions.

Those all try to convince people's emotions. They all compete at the same shallow level. Nationalism, racism, xenophobia in general, are spread the same way.

But I suppose nobody would admit to not having rational justification for something, we all justify all we do. Or else we feel guilty and change, but, as you say, that isn't common. I guess my evangelism is that it should be Wink.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:59 am
@bmcreider,
bmcreider;152849 wrote:
Well, that rationality is something that you would think to instill prior to any beliefs, which without rationality, are based on emotion.

To evangelize, even if we all do it to some extent, is hypocrisy in some fashion, IMHO. Would you want your kid evangelized to by the following modern examples:

-Cults
-Military Recruiters
-Salesman
-Political campaigns
-Cable News
-Advertising
-Few Christians, some other religions.

Those all try to convince people's emotions. They all compete at the same shallow level. Nationalism, racism, xenophobia in general, are spread the same way.

But I suppose nobody would admit to not having rational justification for something, we all justify all we do. Or else we feel guilty and change, but, as you say, that isn't common. I guess my evangelism is that it should be Wink.


A child's entire life is being subject to evangelism of one sort or another. the following groups

parents -
school-
(possibly) church -
sponge bob -
50 cent -
peers -

Asking if I want my child to be evangelized to is like asking if I would like to be subject to pollution. It may suck and I may not like it but either way its going to happen.

Evangelism is not wrong, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights. Its a simple fact of life. If a person idealizes anything that person cannot help but broadcast it to the world in some fashion, and will end up evangelizing to at least those close to him/her. In fact it is considered psychologically abnormal not to. the issue we are coming to here is that people assume that they should have the right not to be bothered with anything that they do not agree with.

Most of the things that a person idealizes are not adopted only after a conscious series of rationalizations and a long list of pros and cons. Even if they are after being ingrained into a personal ideology they become fossilized and dogmatized. One stops weighing their pros and cons, and assumes them to be optimal and right. At this point there is no difference between the ideal adopted "rationally" and one a child adapts to without choice. they are dogmatized, fossilized, and eventually evangelized.
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:05 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
Yes, yes. We are talking from opposite ends of the spectrum here. My idealistic worldview clashes with reality, for sure.

But there are shades of gray, are there not? Some people question different things about themselves, their religion, their purpose in life, philosophical thinking without aiming. Some never question anything, and just accept what they are told, or what is popular, and go with the masses. To some, that is what most appear to do. Maybe that is a skewed view as well, but shouldn't people question more? Can you really say we question enough, and we are not bombarded by said evangelism, from different perspectives, too often to develop our own opinion? Isn't that the point of evangelism when its motives are for profit / control, rather than protectively as instilled via the parents perception.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:12 pm
@bmcreider,
I'm not so sure one can question everything, or even more than a small portion of things. It would just take up too much time. We process things through protoyping, stereotypeing, and archetyping for a reason. Aside from that even if one's ideaology held as a key component, "question everything", that in itself becomes an unquestioned dogmatic practice.
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:27 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
I could see how that could be a trap, incessant questioning. Maybe some, maybe I, treated it as that when I first began that questioning (for me, it was atheism that spawned it) like a teenager with alcohol. It's so new, and disapproved of, that you can't get enough Wink.

But I never did binge drink, either Wink.
 
Blackphilo-relig
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:28 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
Evangelism never sounded so beautiful. Smile
 
bmcreider
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:32 pm
@Hi My Name Is,
I concur with that statement.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 12:43 pm
@bmcreider,
A lot of what I was trying to say is that if we equate evangelism as several of the answers to the OP were stating, imposing a belief system on someone else, then society would fall apart. Culture hinges on transmition, and human society hinges on transmition. Transmition of said culture does not happen passively. Studies on the very few people who have grown up without human contact have shown that the lack of this cultural transmition actually makes them mentally deficient. Evangelism of beliefs and ideals is what it is, people are upset with evangelism of ideal whith which they do not agree, they are fine with evangelism of ideals with which they do.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » Evangelism?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 08:24:54