What is a good Christian?

[Neutraligon]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

[Jedi Council]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

Again, I have no particular problem with evangelism provided its respectful, does not attempt to force those who disagree to conform, and recognizes that if one group has the right to evangelize, all groups do.

As we said a few pages ago in the chat, anyone who is fine with christian preachers going door to door should be totally cool with the Imam from down the road doing the same.

That latter view is, in my experience, uncommon among those who actively proselytize. I therefore disagree with most current evangelical movements and practices.

[Atheris]

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

I will once again point to Mr Rogers.

I would also like to bring Bob Ross to the stand.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It is not a lack of conviction, it is rather a realization that not everyone wants what you are selling, and that it is not alright to try and stick ones nose where it does not belong.

This^

Believe what you want, believe it fervently and devoutly even, but proselytism is something a growing number of people have a dim view on nowadays.

[Neanderthaland]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

Well no. There are lots of Christians who aren't terribly evangelist. The aforementioned Mr. Rogers, for instance. He acted Christian as hell.

What people don't want is others trying to force a religion down their throat. Or going after their children. Or trying to influence politicians to make religious belief into public policy. And it's hardly anti-theists who are the only ones who think this way. Many Christians do as well. They prefer it if, say, the Catholic Church doesn't start pushing into school sex education, or divorce law.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It is not a lack of conviction, it is rather a realization that not everyone wants what you are selling, and that it is not alright to try and stick ones nose where it does not belong.

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all. A Christian who does not support the spreading of the Faith is at odds with Christ’s commandments.

[Neutraligon]

It is not a lack of conviction, it is rather a realization that not everyone wants what you are selling, and that it is not alright to try and stick ones nose where it does not belong.

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

Evangelizing is just a shit way to do so since it tends to simply piss people off.

[Jedi Council]

It is not a lack of conviction, it is rather a realization that not everyone wants what you are selling, and that it is not alright to try and stick ones nose where it does not belong.

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

We come back to the Golden Rule. Treat those how you want to be treated.

Those who evangelize, especially those who do so aggressively, should have no qualms with me then sticking my nose in their business and trying to convince them their faith is a sham.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this would not be well received.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

Evangelizing is just a shit way to do so since it tends to simply piss people off.

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

[Neanderthaland]

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

Evangelizing is just a shit way to do so since it tends to simply piss people off.

In Christianity's defense: a lot of Christian groups know exactly the right way to do this, that both doesn't piss people off very much, and is very effective. Which is to do it through charity.

It's manipulative as fuck, of course. But it's hard to argue with, "well I'm giving them stuff they need for free, so they can listen to me talk about Jesus for 10 minutes."

It's generally only when Christians break from that format that society thinks badly of them.

[Joohan]

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

Mathew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We fully expect to make some people upset and angry with the gospels we bring, but that is mission none the less. At the best of times ( to steal an analogy from Plato ), we're like candymen giving the people what they want - at the worst, we are doctors giving the people the truths that they need.

Mr. Rogers was an Evangelist, though in a more unorthodox style of things. He seldom outright stated the origins of the lessons he was trying to teach, but what he taught was no less holy than a sermon. I will not speak of God, I shall show you his grace.

[Jedi Council]

Evangelizing is just a shit way to do so since it tends to simply piss people off.

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

"Pissing people off is the best way to approach a group."

Not if you are trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong.

[Solomons Land]

A "good" Christian or simply put, an adherer of any faith, is one that actually *values* what he supposedly believes and therefore fights to *enforce* and *protect* it or it shall sooner or later like all entities, it shall simply cease to exist. Christians, just like any other religious group must fight against heretics, adulterers, blasphemers, degenerates and other desecrators of Christendom both within and without. A perfect example would of course be liberals, socialists, Marxists etc. but most surprising of all, the phonies who larp under the duplicitous guise of "conservative" who are often in actuality completely secular and irreligious libertarians or incredibly frail and morally dubious "casual" Christians who are willing to bend and break the tenets of their faith in the face of even minor opposition.

Love the flag, please keep it. :clap:

Can someone tell me the context of the quote from Sanctorum Militum. When I click of it, it says: "You are not authorized to view this forum."

[Hunzali]

A good Christian is one that understands their religion and has reached their belief through their own conscience.

And who thought an answer at the beginning of the thread sums it up.

[Neutraligon]

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

Mathew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We fully expect to make some people upset and angry with the gospels we bring, but that is mission none the less. At the best of times ( to steal an analogy from Plato ), we're like candymen giving the people what they want - at the worst, we are doctors giving the people the truths that they need.

Mr. Rogers was an Evangelist, though in a more unorthodox style of things. He seldom outright stated the origins of the lessons he was trying to teach, but what he taught was no less holy than a sermon. I will not speak of God, I shall show you his grace.

Someone who does something seriously wrong will of course be hated, playing the victim just makes them seem worse. I would not say that MR Rogers was evangelizing. You are not the candyman who gives people what they want nor the doctor who gives hat they need, you are the used car salesman at best...at the orst evangelists can be the murderer.

[Neanderthaland]

Evangelizing is just a shit way to do so since it tends to simply piss people off.

There are different approaches to evangelisation, some more appropriate is certain situations to other, as can be expected the use of the right approach is not always successful. Sometimes pissing people off is the best way to approach a group.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

[Luminesa]

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

The thing is that he did evangelize. He just didn’t proselytize. There’s that distinction.

[Joohan]

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

Well no. There are lots of Christians who aren't terribly evangelist. The aforementioned Mr. Rogers, for instance. He acted Christian as hell.

What people don't want is others trying to force a religion down their throat. Or going after their children. Or trying to influence politicians to make religious belief into public policy. And it's hardly anti-theists who are the only ones who think this way. Many Christians do as well. They prefer it if, say, the Catholic Church doesn't start pushing into school sex education, or divorce law.

They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian.

I am fully well and aware that there are many who would prefer an apathetic and inactive faith, who tolerate misery out of some faulty idea of love. But among most Christians, and certainly in line with our eon's of tradition, those are not the characteristics of a, Good Christian.

[Luminesa]

Someone who is a good person and also a Christian.

All this shit about "not trying to spread their beliefs to others" that seems to be the most common response in this thread is just quite odd to me, and I'm very much an atheist. It doesn't seem to me like that would be a sign of virtue, rather a sign of total lack of conviction. I would be far more suspicious of a Christian who consciously avoided spreading their religion than one who tried to share what they genuinely believe to be good and true.

It is not a lack of conviction, it is rather a realization that not everyone wants what you are selling, and that it is not alright to try and stick ones nose where it does not belong.

If you don’t want what Christians sell, you don’t have to buy it. Evangelization is not meant to force you to become Christian. It’s meant to teach one about what being Christian means, and to allow you the chance to learn more.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

We come back to the Golden Rule. Treat those how you want to be treated.

Those who evangelize, especially those who do so aggressively, should have no qualms with me then sticking my nose in their business and trying to convince them their faith is a sham.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this would not be well received.

As per the Gospel of Luke, 6: 31, “ Do to others as you would have them do to you.” A Christian would hope that another would spread the Gospel to him if he were not partaking in the Faith. Yours would not be well received because it is a spiritually damaging. The verse is from the Christian perspective, what would Christ want you to do others, and how would He want others to treat you?

[Neanderthaland]

Well no. There are lots of Christians who aren't terribly evangelist. The aforementioned Mr. Rogers, for instance. He acted Christian as hell.

What people don't want is others trying to force a religion down their throat. Or going after their children. Or trying to influence politicians to make religious belief into public policy. And it's hardly anti-theists who are the only ones who think this way. Many Christians do as well. They prefer it if, say, the Catholic Church doesn't start pushing into school sex education, or divorce law.

They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian.

There are many Christians who act this way.

I am fully well and aware that there are many who would prefer an apathetic and inactive faith, who tolerate misery out of some faulty idea of love. But among most Christians, and certainly in line with our eon's of tradition, those are not the characteristics of a, Good Christian.

Well there goes the entire monastic tradition...

[Neutraligon]

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

The thing is that he did evangelize. He just didn’t proselytize. There’s that distinction.

No, he did not evangelize, he simply set forward what a good person should do...regardless of who they are.

[Luminesa]

Sounds like a distinct lack of conviction, as it was said in the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 19, “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” It is the duty of the disciple of Christ to spread His Faith to all.

We come back to the Golden Rule. Treat those how you want to be treated.

Those who evangelize, especially those who do so aggressively, should have no qualms with me then sticking my nose in their business and trying to convince them their faith is a sham.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this would not be well received.

I mean, debate is debate.

[Jedi Council]

Well no. There are lots of Christians who aren't terribly evangelist. The aforementioned Mr. Rogers, for instance. He acted Christian as hell.

What people don't want is others trying to force a religion down their throat. Or going after their children. Or trying to influence politicians to make religious belief into public policy. And it's hardly anti-theists who are the only ones who think this way. Many Christians do as well. They prefer it if, say, the Catholic Church doesn't start pushing into school sex education, or divorce law.

They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian.

I am fully well and aware that there are many who would prefer an apathetic and inactive faith, who tolerate misery out of some faulty idea of love. But among most Christians, and certainly in line with our eon's of tradition, those are not the characteristics of a, Good Christian.

Therein is the problem, much of this thread has been devoted to what "good" means.

I am sure there are many "good" Christians in the doctrinal sense, those who live by Scripture and do as you would recommend.

I am also sure that many of these people may not necessarily match the moral, or ethical, "good" that I value and would want all people, regardless of religion, to embody.

[Luminesa]

The thing is that he did evangelize. He just didn’t proselytize. There’s that distinction.

No, he did not evangelize, he simply set forward what a good person should do...regardless of who they are.

Your definition of evangelization and mine are different. He was definitely a proud and active Christian. The values he promoted were Christian in nature. Sure, he never said, “Be Presbyterian like me or go to Hell,” but that’s proselytizing, not evangelizing.