|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Unethical practices in Evangelism. What is the value of the conversions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
So would you say that when it comes to things like Faith or Belief or Salvation, the content of the message cannot be used to determine whether evangelism is ethical or not? I don't see how it can, ultimately. I decide that my approach is ethical (and decide too when it strays over the line into unethical) according to the standard I hold myself accountable to. But that's me. Another will have another standard. Say a person beileves that a literal confession of Christ as Lord saves a person. Their approach thus: "Say these words: 'Christ is Lord' and you will be saved" isn't being unethical in their mind and they are permitted in their mind, to do anything they can to get the person to utter those words. Or "send money" or "go to church". Ethics are like morals. No one can pin them down. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So if the content of the message is not something that can be used to determine whether or not an act is ethical, can other things be used? For example, can a general statement that all parties must be capable of making an informed decision before evangelizing could be considered ethical?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
But, from my position (outside of christianity), mainstream christianity only thinks it has 'my salvation' in mind. From my religious background, 'salvation' is not needed, and the efforts are to lead to the worship of a man as a god, but is actually a false god.
From my perspective, there is no difference between a J.W. prostylization , going after a vulnerable person, and an evangalistic Christian using the same technique going after that person. Which is it. Is using that technique ethical and proper, or isn't it?As far as I can see, the 'ends' are the same. The 'means' are the same. And the value of the 'conversion' is the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
For example, can a general statement that all parties must be capable of making an informed decision before evangelizing could be considered ethical? I don't think a general statement is possible. It would need to refer to some general ethic - decided by, well whoever agree that that is the general ethic. I know turning off a life support machine undere certain circumstances is not considered unethical even though the person involved cannot make an informed decision. Like morals, ethics is a personnal thing: referencing some external standard or some internal standard. All must decide for themselves what they will adhere to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
See message above.
Ethics are in the eye of the beholder. We might as well be talking yet again about morals. Lets not. The conclusion will be as it always is. I don't think "targetting vunerable individuals' such as the two neighbours I referred to is unethical. They are impoverished in spirit and they need to hear of Christ and him crucified. I could target vunerable individuals in another way which I would consider unethical. So I don't Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Which is it. Is using that technique ethical and proper, or isn't it?
The evangelical Christian sees it as unethical not to provide the assistance (i.e. salvation) that this person needs. The JW has a similar view from his perspective. But the two disagree, because they disagree over what is required for salvation. Thus each sees his own action as ethical, and that of the other as unethical. This is a clear example of moral relativism. It seems to me that you (ramoss) are asking for a morally absolute judgement, and that is not possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
iano writes:
Here iano openly admits to his own moral relativism, though I don't doubt that he will continue to deny it in other threads.
Ethics are in the eye of the beholder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It seems to me that you (ramoss) are asking for a morally absolute judgement, and that is not possible. It is possible of course. Just not on this side of death (physical) or life (spiritual) Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
My morals are related to an absolute morality. In that sense I am a moral relativist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ah, but I do. And, you do too, when that exact same technique is used against your belief.
It seems you have a double standard. Targeting vulnerable people who are goign through difficult times is perfectly ok if it leads them to your religion, but using those same techniques is unethical if it leads people away from your religion. In my opinion, that shows that morals are entirely subjective. Either the technique is moral, or it is not. For you, the technique is moral if your side uses it, but immoral if someone uses that same technique against you. IMO, from an outsider looking in, there is exactly no difference bewteen a J.W. using strong arm techniques against someone who is going through a tough emotional time vs an evanglistic Christian using strong arm techniques against someone going trhough an emotional time.The act is the same. The intention is the same.
My morals are related to an absolute morality. In that sense I am a moral relativist.
Yet, when you do something, you consider it moral. When a J.W. or mormon, or a muslim does the exact same thing, relative to them, it isimmoral. That doesn't seem to be an 'absolute' to me. Edited by ramoss, : Providing a comment on a later post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
IMO, from an outsider looking in, there is exactly no difference bewteen a J.W. using strong arm techniques against someone who is going through a tough emotional time vs an evanglistic Christian using strong arm techniques against someone going trhough an emotional time. The act is the same. The intention is the same. The result, if conversion results, is different
Yet, when you do something, you consider it moral. When a J.W. or mormon, or a muslim does the exact same thing, relative to them, it is immoral. That doesn't seem to be an 'absolute' to me. When I attempt to lead someone to Christ I am being moral (according to Gods standard). When a JW attempts to lead someone to a false representation of God that is immoral. The JW won't see it that way. But the fact we both see it the same way doesn't mean both ways are moral (or both immoral) Your comparing apples and pears Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: When I attempt to lead someone to Christ I am being moral (according to Gods standard). This is where that "Lord! Lord!" business comes in. God's standard is "by their fruits ye shall know them" - not by their empty profession of "faith". You would probably make a better impression on your neighbour if you cut her grass, cleaned her gutters, painted her house, etc. Then she might ask you, "What is it that makes you such a nice, helpful young man?" instead of muttering, "Christ! Here comes that a**hole to preach at me again!" I don't think anybody here would question your ethics if you took that kind of positive approach. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
No, What I am doing is pointing out the exact point you are making. And, in my belief, both are equally unethical, and the value of the conversion makes it weak at best. IMO, the GOAL of the tactic is irrelavant, but the method makes it unethical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I beg to differ. The result, if conversion results, is the same. SOmeone, due to pressure from an outside source, causes them to change their religion when they were vulnerable.
If the target was Jewish, the 'old' religion will view it as someone who starts worshipping a man, not God. Islam would make a similar judgement. There is not one wit of difference. It is a conversion to a false religion based on deceit and unethical practices. "By their fruits, you will know them", a very good observation. One reoccuring theme in the Christian religion is on how Satan is the father of lies, yet many evanglistic christians do not seem to be bothered if they used the tools they attribute to Satan to try to convert people. Does that really make sense to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well said RR.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024