Speaking at the TOC year in review, Miss Braema Mathi tells of her encounter with a religious group that showed up at her doorstep with the intention of spreading its gospel.
Her opinion is that they should not have knocked on her door, as it was evident that she had identified herself as a Hindu with a picture of a Hindu deity on her front door. In her words, “How dare they?” It was, according to her, a deliberate intrusion of her personal space (“it’s my door”) and even though she told them politely (“did you not see the picture?”) that she wasn’t interested, one can’t help but wonder: Was her reaction absolutely necessary? Let’s assess the situation.
Beginning with the evangelists, what exactly were their intentions? Evangelism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English as “the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness”. Essentially, an evangelist who doesn’t preach is redundant – like a water bottle with its bottom cut out. Therefore, it should be safe to assume that their intention was to offer people insights into their beliefs.
Carrying on from there, were those intentions good or bad? Should we assume that these evangelists are manipulative, with intention to wage an unspoken religious war against “the others”? Or do we give them the benefit of the doubt, and concur that their desire to spread what they perceive as good news is purely borne out of goodwill.
I’ve dealt with my share of evangelists, and it always amazes me how wholeheartedly they believe in their religions. Despite my overwhelming cynicism, it is difficult to conceive of them having ill intentions, even if I disagree with what they have to say. Like kids sharing candy, one boy may like liquorice, and may offer it to the other kids because of what he perceives as an extraordinary flavor. The others have no obligation to accept the offer, and may even reject it.
But when do evangelists cross the line? A Christian couple was convicted last year for distributing two anti-Muslim publications, The Little Bride, and Who is Allah? This was Singapore’s first sedition trial involving religious publications. I do not know if the couple had read it prior to its distribution, but the odds are they didn’t. The Little Bride is full of nothing but offensive, presumptuous statements. The fact that these inflammatory messages were displayed as a children-friendly comic strip makes it worse! Materials like these promote religious intolerance, and supply a one-sided view of religion.
Were they correctly sentenced? Whether they were or not, they may have potentially ruined it for all evangelists in the country. Evangelists with the purest of intentions are now viewed as intolerant, religious extremists whose sole purpose is to rid the world of all opposing religions. Already, people like Benny Hinn have tainted the art of evangelism with their idiocy. The stereotype looks to be set in stone, and everyone is sold.
Hence, when people feel that their personal space is intruded by evangelists knocking from door to door, are they already holding a biased impression that these well-meaning evangelists are religiously intolerant? Even if there were religious signage on the doors of these households, one wonders if the mere act of spreading the gospel constitutes disrespect for the religious choices of the households involved.
Perhaps an actual, written sign would have worked better. “Beware of uninterested dweller” is subtle yet humorous, and also serves multiple purposes – it will repel salesmen, promoters and evangelists. If that doesn’t work, and they still come a-knocking, then Miss Braema’s sentiments would surely be justified. For now though, I’m not so sure they are.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I personally do not think there is anything wrong with evangelism. The problem is their approach and the reaction to your rejection. They are too emotional. Religious extremists? maybe. But it is more of a select few misrepresenting the whole lot of evangelists.
owayz
the problem with evanglism is that it promote intolerance in some way.
one can argue that evangelism a form of encroachment into the secular space from the christian extremist. When we tolerate it, what stopping from other religion extremist from doing the same (ie encroach into the secular space too) but in their own ways.
They can easily argue, ‘they can do it, why cant I ?’
Where will all this end? History has shown it almost always ends badly.
Look at the church bombing incident lately in Msia. Just a tip of the iceberg and will continue to fracture the fragile religion tolerance further.
Is this what we want for SG too?
salvation is exclusive in the christian faith or doctrine(means you will burn in hell if you don’t bow to their doctrine or have their kind of faith).
if that’s not extremist and offensive, i don’t know what is.
///47) lobo76 on January 13th, 2010 4.54 pm
You should have fallen to the ground screaming in pain… I think you can add a few rolls if the ground isn’t too dirty.///
hahaha are you serious?
Then they will claim its a part of exorcism (a whole new ballgame altogether)
There are plenty of poorly-reasoned and vindictive remarks made here by those who claim to be liberal/secular/tolerant.
Evangelism isn’t wrong per se. Sure, it involves people trying to persuade you that your beliefs about god, the afterlife etc. are false, and that their beliefs are true — but every one of us does that, including those who preach doctrines like ‘the right to privacy’ or ‘mutual tolerance’. If you’re offended by the mere fact that people disagree with you and/or are judging your actions, then you’re a little too thin-skinned to be living in a culturally plural society.
Other commenters contend that evangelism equates to ‘coercion’ or (that unimaginative, recycled phrase) ‘shoving one’s beliefs down another’s throat’. Well, I say that if you feel pressured into converting just by the mere mention of fire and brimstone and the Apocalypse, then your own beliefs aren’t that secure in the first place!
To those who argue that evangelism “encroaches on the secular space”, you obviously aren’t firing on more than just a handful of neurons. What about burning incense at HDB void decks, Chinese funeral processions, Thaipusam celebrations, open-air celebrations/ceremonies often held by Buddhist organizations (especially around Vesak Day), etc.. Such phrases as “encroaching on the secular space” sound nice, but are apt to obscure.
Obviously, there are clear limits. Where evangelism involves repeated, persistent harassment from the same person(s) (even after the hearer has clearly refused), or where it targets the very young (say, those below age 14) — then it crosses the line. But evangelism is acceptable if those who practise it desist after you firmly reject their advance (three “Nos” is a reasonable number, I suggest).
Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists.
I must admit that most go about doing it the wrong way, therefore turning people off, however, just stop and think. Wouldn’t most of the evanglist know that they are being ridiculed and despised by the general public? If so, why still subject themselves to such insult. It is because of their firm belief in the joys that knowing Christ has brought them.
Having said this, Christians respect other religions, do not let a few black sheep who go around badmouthing other religions give you the impression that this is what we learn in Church, it is simply not true. i can say the it is not the wish to eliminate other religions that the proper Christian evangilize, but the genuine love we have for others.
To label the evangelists extremist would be an extreme in itself. Would anyone here really compare an evangelist who do a little hand-grabbing to a Muslim extremist/fundamentalist who goes on jihad and commit acts of terrorism?
la nausee
nicely argued on the part that other religions has their ‘encroachments’ therefore it justify the right to evangelism.
the thing is, all the example you have mentioned dont need your participation if you dont want to. You are not targeted specifically by their action.
Dont like joss stick, dont go near one.
Dont like thaipusan or chingay dont attend or simply dont watch.
(dont recall they forces one to do so does it?)
but its a lot more difficult when these ‘outreaching’ evanglical actually come up to your doorstep.
That’s where a lot of people has an issue with.
fancy that you bring up limits, until there’s a controlling body to regulate this then its an open debate whether evangelism should be allow, fair no?
ps : people are not sway/coerce into converting like lemmings over an open clift, just by mentioned of brimstones and apocalypse. they simply dont want to waste time by having to repeat that ‘NO’ 3 times. for most cases, 3 times are not enough.
JH
I truly applaud you for shedding the lights on the noble motives of the evangelicals.
But dont you think you are on the borderline judgemental?
Your hole on the road analogy is just a ‘hole’.
If you ask followers of other religions , they probably feel the same way as you.
You need to be saved only by following their religion, and who can say who is more right or more wrong?
(but do you see them going out with mantra of fire and brimstones?)
The question remains is where is the limits?
If there are, who is regulating this?
To label evangelical would be extreme it self, you say?
Really now, how about the american evangelical that influenced the uganda to pass a law to execute people for being gay?
It all boils down to actions my friends, it speaks louder than words could ever do.
Like i said before, the best form of evanglism is to show by example, by showing love and compassion that so abundant in bible would be more effective method, no?? (more difficult but definitely more effective)
Hello la nausee? The topic is whether Religious evangelists are extremist or not and not about tolerace as a society
People who hold extremist view can be offensive. whether we tolerate them or not is beside the point.
Kenz
I totally agree ith you that the best form of evanglism is through example and action.
The question of limit – I’m not saying that all evanglism is non extremist, but to equate the form of evanglism as mentioned in the article to extremism is simply an extreme in itself =)
Need a sign to tell them from avoiding those dwellers who are not interested?
These unwelcome visitors irregardless of their intention are a nuisance especially to people like me who only manage to sleep 3 hours a day.
Even kneecap oso can think that this is an act that causes annoyance .There is no justification for such an act and these activities should be stop if we want to live in harmony.
Ms Braema may have over react.But what causes her to be so?Becos these promoters do not have respect for others.I have these experiences too though I haven’t react like how she reacted.
My most recent encounter with evangelists was just two weeks back where I was ‘harrassed’ (he was literally walking backwards -11 oçlock position – at arm’s length from me) while I was walking to the bus stop for about 200m, a walk that took over 20 minutes. The only way for me to get out of the way was to just board the first bus that reached the bus stop and alighted at the next bus stop as that wasn’t the bus that I was to take.
To cite exclusively Braema’s incident seems to potray that ‘peaceful, non seditious’ evangelism is a fundamental right while ignoring the offensive nature of their act of touting. I’m still planning what to do the next time I’m harrassed the same way or worse, maybe I should blow a whistle to alert all around me that I am being robbed of my peace.
Knowing the anti-Christian stance of TOC since the AWARE incident, and the angle and perspective which the writer, Alvin Poon, choose to write this artcile, it is already highly fixated and clear in its intention to label Christian evangelist as extremist.
So, what’s there to be argued? According to the writer, CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTS ARE EXTREMISTS…period!! TOC is not asking for your opinion, IT IS TELLING YOU THAT IT IS!
That being the case, isn’t TOC spilling extremists’ views as well, which means it is a platform for extremist of a different kind – the anti-Christian extremists?
sigh … that ‘hole analogy’ again demonstrates the smug righteousness of those who want to convert others who may actually feel as righteous as them regarding their own faiths.
‘The path to hell is laid with the best of intentions’ – always true.
There’s a lot of hypocrisy – religious tolerance, na… I wait for a better time to convert you.
So some of the fundie’s eventually want to drop the pretence.
Notice Inter-religion Council, none of the mega churches take part – they totally dun want to compromise.
Only the traditional Christians – Catholics Anglicans Methodists are there. In fact being schooled in the Roman Catholic tradition, I say the pressure to convert & evangelise is least comopared to the American-influence mega church influences. Attend any of their service – always at a certain part of the year, the MLM model kicks in, cell-groups, go & talk to & bring someone to our church. Targets set, peer pressure take over.
In the meatime, organize mass ‘Love Singapore’ campaigns to score PR points with public.
But make no mistake, aim is to one day make this one Christian nation under God.
This is not paranoi, it’s their most ardent desire – witness the Freudian slips of COOS pastor in the past.
Hey, how is this for an idea ??
To avoid relgious pests knocking on your doors, you put up crucifixes, figuries of Hindus diety,guan ying, buddha, said baba, virgin mary, etc all on our doors.
That way, whoever wants to come knocking to preach will be blur as sotong !!
Besides promoting the mutli-religious society of SG, it also helps in promoting the creative arts of SG.
YOu can’t be haul up for vandalism (Singpost saga) cos its your own door!
How’s that for suggestion.
“Bow bow to tremendous applause” thank you thank you thank you….
Perhaps Ms Braema can organise an anti-evangelism campaign. No evangelising in all public spaces, schools, hdb and giving out flyers that are offensive to non-believers.
Andrew, she could even go around knocking on people’s doors and ask them to to sign up for an anti-evangelism campign, ha ha !!
Alamak, that means that besides the pictures of deities and crucifixes, now i hae to add another one that says “Anti anti-evangelism. Don’t knock on my door”..
i think i need to apply to HDB for a bigger door……
Yo Joe, u dun know u can’t use ‘Alamak’ now meh ?
Using ‘Allah’ name in vain not enough, still asking after His Mother ?
Tsk Tsk, this must be added to the list of 20 over prohibited words in M’sia reported in ST today :-)
“For the first time, the LoveSingapore leadership publicly conveyed the vision and defined the core values of the pan-denominational movement and outlined the strategies and drew up the steps leading to a decisive point of Singapore’s transformation by the year 2015″
http://alpha.wrpf.sg/?p=429
LoveSingapore – its intention, which was so brashly advertised on their site – was to transform sg into a christian nation. I wrote to Reach about this but received no response at all – perhaps the people at Reach too are in support of this movement.
If u look at their methods, they plan to infiltrate every level of society and use their influence in these spheres to effeect their conversion. It reads almost like a military manual for infiltrating the enemie’s stronghold and wiping them out eventually. Is this is the good intentions and deeds of christians who repect other religions?
The event held at expo last year, attracted thousands from all the evengelical and mega churches and was the initial venue the new leaders of AWARE wanted to hold their extrordinary meeting.
The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again.
I mean who could argue with these 2 patriotic words : LOVE SINGAPORE ?
You want to cho-cho, from Feminist Mentor to Prof Thio to Handsome Prince & Polo-mad Khong to Kong Hee Fatt Choy & their 5-figure high-powered followers will come & whack you for ‘disrupting religious harmony’, anti-christian blah blah …
1st class subversion …
56) JH on January 14th, 2010 1.57 am ,
Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists.
I would have to point out that your analogy is flawed. First of all, religion is something that cannot be proven. i.e there isn’t a right or wrong. Your ‘gapping hole’ is not a neither-right-nor-wrong proposition, rather, It is a ‘sure’ proposition. As in, if one doesn’t see the hole in time, they WILL fall.
I have a hard time coming up with a analogy but I think I may have one. Maybe you can consider something inconsequential like walking?
you have to start with either your left foot or right foot when you start walking, right? Some people just like to start off with their left, and evangelists may be people who say that you have to start with the right foot. They believe that you will get crippled sooner or later if you start walking with your left…
69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am
“The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again. ”
I recommend vandalising their advertisement. Or protest at hong lim park or use civil disobedience.
69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am
Organise a FreeSingapore campaign to counter?
angkujupi
thank for pointing my mistake. i do aplogise for saying “alamak”. oh shit, i just said it again !!
Ala…. Aiyoh, sorry. I think i better shut the hell up before i get stoned.
Peace and chill man to all me brothers and sisters.
hahahaha welll with whats happening across the causeway i hope these mega rich pastors will think twice about their actions.
this is like saleswoman selling goods in the shopping centre. It all depends on the person… some have good skills (i.e. polite, not pushy) while others need improvement… so it won’t be good just to generalised and throw out the baby along with the bath water…
Saleswoman has probably the most sensible analogy i have read in this forum.
Trust a woman to come up with an analogy that is sales related…. so shopping therapy does have its usefulness !!
77) Joe on January 14th, 2010 1.24 pm
well, I don’t really agree with you on saleswoman’s analogy. There is no clarification on the ‘good’ that is being sold. Can you imagine if the ‘good’ was pork? Pork in itself is just another meat, just like Christianity is just another religion. Does it matter then if the skill of the salesperson is good if s/he tries to sell it to a vegetarian (assuming the salesperson knows for a fact the target IS a vegetarian)? Worse…maybe s/he tried to sell it to a vegetarian muslim.
If the salesperson is any good, the very first step has to be to find the correct audience to make his sales pitch. Something the evangelists seem to ignore.
72) andrew leung on January 14th, 2010 11.39 am
69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am
“The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again. ”
I recommend vandalising their advertisement…
——————————————-
Surely, as logical, reasonable and free-thinking people, we don’t need to sink down to their level and resort to censorship of opposing views. Let them have their little campaign to conquer the nation.
If Singaporeans are really that gullible and easily manipulated, I can only say that they deserve the oppressive thioliban society they will get. Those who value freedom can then leave and let their “holy” society sink back into a medieval cesspool.
IMO, evangelist should start with their own Christian brothers, coz only 1 in 3 of them believe it anyway. please see this story from Christian Post
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/americas/183/section/1.htm
The trouble with these mega-churches & their leaders – overzealous need to build the largest building, the largest membership all for the glory of God’s kingdom, rather than to uplift spiritual life of followers !
boasting over 10,000 members, building tallest church (City Harvest Indonesian church partner) etc
For the Lord’s glory or for personal vanity & materialism ?!
I prefer attending churches using the traditions.
When it come to evagelism, if the person is interested to hear, I will continue to talk.
If the person does not talk, I just say thank you.
A responsibility for me being a Christian is more of sharing the message, letting others to know about rather forcing the person to convert.
After that, it depends on the holy spirit to do the next action.
to know about, rather than forcing the person to convert*
*edit
56) JH on January 14th, 2010 1.57 am, you mentioned:
“…Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists…”
(1) Religions are very subjective matters. You “can” spot a gapping hole because you are influenced by your religion. I am sure you know who dig the hole for those who refuse to follow what evangelists try to preach.
(2) And the most important thing is, you know who dig the hole, play as savior, and believe to avoid the hole one has to accept the savior. To you and the evangelists, this is good news, this is Gospel. If not, one will fall into the (hell) hole and be burnt forever.
(3) However, to others, to dig a hole for non-believers to fall in, if they refuse the savior, is not good news at all. It is as simple as that.
(4) Ref: To better understand what I try to say, please also refer to 25) Kenz on January 13th, 2010 1.32 pm
@Kenz (#57), I do think my examples remain valid. In fact, they may be even more encroaching/intrusive than Christian evangelism, if the latter is practised moderately.
If some people start burning joss stick / incense below your flat, you can’t really avoid the smoke or tell them to go some place else. You just shut your windows for about 10-15 minutes. The same applies to a Thaipusam procession or a Chinese funeral being carried out in the neighbourhood — often, we just have to bear with the noise for a while.
You say that it’s the ‘targeting’ of non-Christians which makes evangelism offensive. But why should it? They believe they are spreading an important message or offering a good/service, which is beneficial for you and me. We may disagree, but how very different would evangelism be from, say, selling insurance policies or spreading awareness about STDs or labour rights or the basics of Singapore law or any other issue that you might expect the average person to be interested in? (We’re all interested in why we live and die, and what happens to us thereafter.)
And for all these forms of outreach, one would surely not waste time preaching to the converted. If I wanted to raise general awareness about the law, would I be speaking to lawyers and judges? No — I’d ‘target’ those who aren’t too familiar with the law to begin with, or don’t think that it concerns them. And that’s exactly what Christian evangelists are doing, aren’t they?
So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered. And as long as evangelists respect your wishes after you’ve firmly refused, evangelism should be tolerated and accepted.
Quote:-
So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered. And as long as evangelists respect your wishes after you’ve firmly refused, evangelism should be tolerated and accepted.
In theory, this is a fair statement.
Logic also clear : evangelize of course is to non-believers by definition.
But I know of FCBC, carrying this ‘soft evangelism’ to a higher level.
Sr Pastor Khong has ever announced special campaigns whereby for say a 100-day period, whole congregations thru cell-groups asked to go PRAY for total strangers – approach them saying ‘May I pray for your well-being… ‘, presumably the idea is to touch others with concern then share gd news, invite to church etc etc.
So the onus is on on-believers to withstand/ / tolerate these ‘kindness assualts’ & maintain civility.
When is too much too much ?
Evangelistic methods are gettng more subtle & pervasive
85) la nausée on January 14th, 2010 7.42 pm
la nausee,
targeting non-christians is a good thing, as to spread a message?
Non-christians, i assumed you refer to those with different religions other than christianity and altheist?
geez, what ever happened to other peoples opinions and choices?
Are you so arrogant to believe that they do not think about how to live and die and thereafter, just because they dont share the same religion as you?
You said just because the evangelicals believe they are spreading good news which is beneficial to you and me therefore its acceptable?
Seriously you are not kidding me right?
Awareness of STD, yes, Insurance policies, yes, labour rights, yes too.
Message from their bible with their actions that dont match up, hell NO.
Difference is all the other example is proven, bible thumping message not so much lately.
///And for all these forms of outreach, one would surely not waste time preaching to the converted. If I wanted to raise general awareness about the law, would I be speaking to lawyers and judges? No — I’d ‘target’ those who aren’t too familiar with the law to begin with, or don’t think that it concerns them. And that’s exactly what Christian evangelists are doing, aren’t they?///
How arrogantly put.
Why cant you see other people with different religions as converted too?
////So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered.///
Yeah really flattering to an aging person to be targeted by liposuction/comestic surgery clinic regardless what he/she think about the procedure.
real flattering, i’ll say.
You say that it’s the ‘targeting’ of non-Christians which makes evangelism offensive. But why should it? They believe they are spreading an important message or offering a good/service, which is beneficial for you and me. We may disagree, but how very different would evangelism be from, say, selling insurance policies or spreading awareness about STDs or labour rights or the basics of Singapore law or any other issue that you might expect the average person to be interested in?
————————————————————————————-
la nausée, the difference between evangelism from the examples you have cited (with the exception of insurance policies), is that the “goodness” of evangelism is a subjective one, while knowledge of the law or STDs is objectively useful.
Evangelism is more similar to insurance policies in the sense that others might well choose to manage their financial affairs their own, equally valid, way. An insurance salesman who insists that his products are better, that their current plans are crap, would well come off as a complete nuisance.
To view evangelism as an objective good, on the same level as knowledge of the law or STDs, one has to make the assumption that christianity is the one true religion, so that not converting into that religion is objectively bad for the non-believer. That being said, the subjective belief that christianity is absolutely true does not make it a factual truth.
Religion is the opium of man.
Napaleon was right when he said if you want people to shut up, give them religion.
borderless.
I think napoleon didnt know about the evangelical christian. lol
(it has the opposite effect, no?)
@Kenz and The Game, thanks for your replies.
To The Game, your distinction between “subjective” and “objective” value is not as clear-cut as it seems. Suppose one approaches a random passerby on the street, and asks, “Could I take a minute of your time to highlight some key facts about STDs?” One might imagine the average Singaporean’s response: “What, do I look like an STD-carrier or a sex maniac to you?!”, or “*bochup look*” or “Who do you think you are, telling me what or what not to do in my private life?”
So even these forms of information may or may not be perceived as valuable by the prospective audience — i.e. their value is equally ‘subjective’. The salesman or campaigner or evangelist simply wouldn’t know what the response would be, unless he or she approached the person and asked.
To Kenz, the first point is that very few people make a once-and-for-all decision to stick to a certain religion or religious view. We’re constantly reflecting on, rethinking what we believe. Why then shouldn’t we be open to what others think or believe? What you’re asking for is a right to be insulated from views you disagree with — and that’s not a right which can exist in any minimally democratic society.
And the reason why I said we should feel flattered if a Christian evangelist approaches us is that he or she typically does so out of a genuine concern for our well-being, and not to earn some commission or fulfill a job quota. Sure, their beliefs may be mistaken, and it may be slightly annoying to have one’s passage interrupted, but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it?
Just when we are talking about evanglism, and here comes Pat robertson.
For those who dont know who Pat Robertson is, famous famous american top Tele-evangelist.
Here he comes blaming the Haiti earthquake to their revolt agaisnt slavery from the French (by making a deal with the Devil)
His exact words see the links ;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html
Just simply BoomZ my mind away.
////91) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 12.37 am
To Kenz, the first point is that very few people make a once-and-for-all decision to stick to a certain religion or religious view. We’re constantly reflecting on, rethinking what we believe. Why then shouldn’t we be open to what others think or believe? What you’re asking for is a right to be insulated from views you disagree with — and that’s not a right which can exist in any minimally democratic society.////
Commendable reasoning but …. flawed.
Lets turn the table around, if other religions followers starting to target Christians to be converted to their religion? What would your reactions be then?
(let me just point out the simple fact, only Christianity (evangelical) actively go out and trying to convert the mass not the other way round; but then we will never know wont we?)
///And the reason why I said we should feel flattered if a Christian evangelist approaches us is that he or she typically does so out of a genuine concern for our well-being, and not to earn some commission or fulfill a job quota. Sure, their beliefs may be mistaken, and it may be slightly annoying to have one’s passage interrupted, but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it? ////
Very noble thoughts indeed. But i still cant shake of the sentiments that evangelism has a more economical agenda for the churches.
More converts, means more tithes.
More market for the christian DVD/Books and etc. (ka Ching!ka ching!)
I do not hate christians.
They have the right to save themselves from whatever perils of daily life they see fit. They have the right to save themselves with whatever means they see fit.
But I do hate the abnoxious christians who do not hesitate to denigrate the religious beliefs of others to empower themselves. I hate the ogasmic extravanganzas and freakshows that are put up in the name of their god.
There is always a bit hypocracy in all religions. But some are really pushing it.
They have no one to blame but themselves when there is a public backlash.
I live in Sembawang. I have been visited by christians, and given two of those silly comics. One of which I thought was clearly targetted at catholics.
Braema Mathi’s experience is not far fetched.
I am no longer annoyed by those who try to convert me becos it is quite common for certain religion to have this funny habit.My only junior family member was brainwashed lately and she only know how to spent her free saturday and sunday in her Seow group and not willing to help the father who work 20 hours a day and is struggling looking for helper to help him.
I have my way to deal with them without offending them.The last 2 swee char bor who try to “help”me in the name of J did pray for me.They ask my wish and I tell them I wish to strike 4D and Toto.They say they can only help me to pray for Happiness.So they ask me to close my eye,pray for me…But I open my eye quietly when they are praying and look at their ………admiring their beauty…let my imagination turn wild….while they are praying for me.After that they told me that I will be a happier person …Of course ,in my mind i say,come more often …with a lower cut…I will be more happy..hee heehee..
91) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 12.37 am
but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it?
Interesting.. your examples seems to highlight the LACK of thought, rather than the process of thinking.
your example of approaching a random person and talking about STD. your imagined response is about right I think. Did the person trying to spread the danger of STD THINK, before approaching the person? Even if response to a topic is subjective, surely there is a better way to target a person than to do it randomly?
In the example given by the article, the evangelist shows again, the lack of THINKING. People already have a belief (Hinduism). Is it so hard to know what kind of response they would get?
Although I am Christian but I don’t encourage Evangelism. You can’t force a cow to drink water when the cow is not interested. I returned to my Christian was when my divorced father was down with stroke, out of job, no shelter. I seek help from every place I know only to face rejection. Until a Pastor of a halfway house stretched out his helping hand.
My sister was converted to Christian when she saw how my son transformed from a mildly autistic boy to a friendly boy who makes friends. My church life also restored my relationship with my mother although she is not a believer. All of these shows that people will come to church if they do really see the blessings happen. There’s no need for aggressive evangelism. People queue up at my church to hear my Pastor preach.
I got an brilliant idea on how to deal with the fundies.
The next time they approach me you know what I will ask them? My first question to them is if they think the opening of the IRs is morally wrong, to encourage gambling. Isn’t that imposing morally wrong values on society? And where were they and what have they done to engage the govt on this issue? Since they are so righteous, they should also clearly state their position.
Then they will be forced torespond.
Chances are, this will expose the hypocracy in this movement and I encourage others to do the same.
I think many people including religious groups have voiced their concerns over the IR in Singapore, but the PM decided to go ahead even after consulting with these different faith groups, and decided to open 2 IR instead.
andrew leung on January 15th, 2010 5.16 pm
That’s true. Perhaps they should focus their efforts on campaigning against the IR rather than targeting ordinary citizen folks to evangelise? Why must they stoop so low like the PAP? No guts I guess?
They will surely gain more support for many of their causes rather then alienating and dividing themselves